Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

How so? Scientifically speaking, of course.

Shouldn't you know this as a grad student in cog science?

It's not a clear statement. I mean what does "space pixies" mean exactly? You can't find a way to test this, and you can't even determine what are the variables exactly. It's a terrible hypothesis.

Ok, good, then we're on the same page. Since we don't know what the hypothesis actually is yet, it seemed as though you were calling it terrible because of an assumption that it would be falsified. But we agree then. A hypothesis is terrible when it is formulated in an untestable way, not when it is wrong. Hypothesis are allowed to fail experimentation, and still be great hypothesis.