I mean, if you think about it, the null hypothesis really should be that the Earth is flat. That is after all what the human eye perceives at first examination. It was proven conclusively to be round millennia ago, but it still required proof. But if you had no other evidence than your eyes, Occam’s Razor would suggest the Earth is flat.
I mean, if you think about it, the null hypothesis really should be that the Earth is flat. That is after all what the human eye perceives at first examination. It was proven conclusively to be round millennia ago, but it still required proof. But if you had no other evidence than your eyes, Occam’s Razor would suggest the Earth is flat.
By that logic, nothing exists beyond what I can see.
But, the Null Hypothesis generally IS that X does not exist until you receive evidence otherwise.
That’s pretty much how we all work, we just have very different sources and standards when it comes to which evidence is taken seriously.
Could we use a sextant in a flat world?