Oftentimes on the boards, I’ll see a discussion of some non-standard hypothesis about the world, for example, the “hollow Earth theory” or “auras” or whatever. People will chime in to rebut it.
However, it seems that often people will reject a hypothesis only because it is ‘odd’ or ‘different’ from those they’re used to following. This does not seem to be very rigourous to me.
IMHO, the only reason for disqualifying any hypothesis is that it predicts things about the universe that can be tested, and the tests prove false.
If the hypothesis under consideration explains something as well as the normal accepted ones, but offers no way to be tested, it is unverifiable, and needs to be either set aside or extended until it can be tested.
And, of course, if the hypothesis yields tests that prove true, the hypothesis is on its way to becoming part of the normal accepted worldview.
So… how do people justify rejection of hypotheses just because they’re ‘weird’?