# Wierdness is not a valid reason to disqualify a hypothesis.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 23, 2003, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899 "2003-02-23T03:21:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@DrLizardo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrLizardo)
#### Post date: [February 25, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899/21 "2003-02-25T21:07:14Z")
I don’t think a hypothesis should be “thrown out” for being “too weird,” I think it should be ignored for being too weird.
Nobody here is under any obligation to respond to a question/hypothesis that’s thrown out. So in the SDMB world, my raving capitalist solution is “market operation”… If it’s too weird, very few will participate… If quite a few participate, then the hypothesis has enough validity to merit discussion (regardless of whether “proof” can be gained or not)
I would say that those who go into a thread a take the time to post a message saying something like “this is hokum and too weird to take seriously” are A) wasting their time and B) perpetuating the very thread they find useless by bumping it to the top and adding views/posts to it – signs that might indicate legitimacy to others… The very theory behind the dictum to “do not feed the troll” in the case of purposefully inflammatory meritless posts.
---
### Author:  [@I\_Brian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Brian)
#### Post date: [February 26, 2003, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899/22 "2003-02-26T08:53:34Z")
**Asterion**
> [@](#):
>
> Electromagnetism and gravitation could be related, if the physicists can ever pull together their Grand Unified Theory. So the idea that there could be or is a device that could exploit part of this is interesting, and could be real-world data for the support of a unified theory, but until then, I think it’s fair to hold the relationship ideas at arms-length.
Certainly - without any theoretical framework to test nothing useful can be done. However, my intuition tells me that if there is a relationship, then we’ll suddenly find the notions of dark matter and negative energy practically disappear overnight. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Hand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Hand)
#### Post date: [February 26, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899/23 "2003-02-26T20:00:12Z")
Aside from the whole falsifiability problem for “weird” hypotheses, I think there’s a further reason not to take them seriously. Maybe you’ll want to denounce this as an informational cascade, or a bounded rationality problem, but I think that’s perfectly legitimate to use a “legitimate viewpoint” heuristic as a short cut in deciding what hypotheses merit further inquiry and which can be discounted until much more credible evidence has come forth. If someone were to dig up our dear old dead pal Eddie Burke, I’m sure he’d have something to say on the matter of the wisdom of trusting tradition and authority.
---
### Author:  [@dylan\_73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dylan_73)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899/24 "2003-02-28T13:37:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by I, Brian \*
> **He believed that the moment he went public with it, the oil industry would bribe him quiet with a massive pay-off. Not seen him for a while, tho’.**
Ahh…the reason you haven’t seen him is because there are _alternatives_ to bribery… 🙂
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierdness-is-not-a-valid-reason-to-disqualify-a-hypothesis/156899.md?page=1)