Your 'valid' critique was a few pejorative adjectives, a few platitudes, and a few links to books/videos that maybe were supposed to supply the actual critique.... — jas0n

I am not interested in your excuses.
I am pointing the issue in claims that are epistemically disconnected....they are not philosophical.

I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar

How can a statement be accepted as false if it is true? Riddle me that !

You can not have wise claims without epistemic support. — Nickolasgaspar


This is an awkward tautology. The hard part (the actual work) is figuring out what all that otherwise vague babble means. — jas0n

ok now we know that you are also unable to distinguish wisdom from knowledge......
Do you really thing that equating different concepts is your "out of jail card"?

I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar


How can a statement be accepted as false if it is true? Riddle me that ! — jas0n

Again.pls explain why we should accept a claim as wise when it doesn't have epistemic support....what is your criterion and method of evaluation. Your feelings?

I am pointing the issue in claims that are epistemically disconnected....they are not philosophical. — Nickolasgaspar

I am trying to draw your attention to the fact that you are basically repeating a mantra. You are making a trivial deduction from your pet definitions.

dude take care of that back...all this dodging might cause some issues...
Ok we know that you will defend your magical ideology to the end even if it means you have to embarrass yourself.
So you can not explain why this simple condition(epistemic support) is missing for your ideologies......
you are done I guess.

explain why we should accept a claim as wise when it doesn't have epistemic support — Nickolasgaspar

'Hello. I'm Nick. I define a wise (philosophical) claim to be one with epistemic support. Now, given this uselessly vague definition, I challenge you to accept and challenge this definition simultaneously.'

See the problem?

maybe an other question...
what makes a claim wise...in your opinion?

what makes a claim wise...in your opinion? — Nickolasgaspar

Be careful. We might find ourselves doing philosophy if you keep this up.

'Hello. I'm Nick. I define a wise (philosophical) claim to be one with epistemic support. Now, given this uselessly vague definition, I challenge you to accept and challenge this definition simultaneously.' — jas0n

-I think you are an excellent example for my arguments! I hope Agent Smith can observe this interaction and see how huge of a problem epistemic disconnectedness is for Pseudo Philosophy and sophists.

Ok we know that you will defend your magical ideology to the end even if it means you have to embarrass yourself. — Nickolasgaspar

By their windmills ye shall know them.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote

Perhaps the best abbreviation for someone's heroic ego-ideal is the choice of their windmill.

Perhaps the heroic role tends to be of equal complexity and interest as the shadow it casts.

Be careful. We might find ourselves doing philosophy if you keep this up. — jas0n

I am not sure you are capable of that...after all you are whining on what you think my motivations are....you don't address the issues in hand.

So it is obvious that you don't have an answer to this simple question. I won't address any other of your comments until you display basic honesty and present some actual arguments on why epistemology is not necessary for a claim to be acknowledged as wise (philosophical).

You were correct (genuinely philosophical) to start discussing (not simply pontificating about) what makes a claim wise (or rational or trustworthy.) But we've derailed this thread long enough. So maybe we'll actually do philosophy elsewhere at some other time.

you are derailing it. I only pointing out the obvious. There aren't any epistemic foundations for the concept of gods...so not only there aren't any scientific foundations for this concepts, there also zero philosophical foundations for it.
The supernatural is pseudo philosophy BY DEFAULT.

3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc. — Agent Smith

Exactly! Modern Science studies the physical aspects of Nature, by means of their innate "scope" of Consciousness (what we know with). But they take that inwardly focused "lens" for granted, because it is not a material object to be dissected into structural elements. Instead, Consciousness arises from complex systems as a holistic function. It seems to be "aware" of internal neural states, converting their physical patterns into metaphysical meanings.

In the interview (below), linked by , a physicist suddenly realized that something important was being overlooked in the sciences he was studying : the mind doing the examining. Unfortunately, such subjective subjects were tossed out, along with the faith-stained bathwater, as Science emerged from under the yoke of autocratic Religion. :smile:

Consciousness as the Ground of Being :
I was studying neuroscience and biology, and I asked myself: ‘How come that all these books never mention consciousness?’ ___Physicist Federico Faggin ; inventor of the Intel 4004 chip
https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/consciousness-as-the-ground-of-being/

MENTAL SUBJECT . . . . . . VIEWS . . . . . . . PHYSICAL OBJECT

Note -- the metaphysical Mind is a holistic function of physical neuronal systems in the brain

↪Gnomon
:up: Your posts are definitely improving through time in my humble opinion. Just been reading this interview which I'm sure you will find relevant. — Wayfarer

Thanks. Since I have no formal training in philosophical argumentation, I'm using this forum as a "school of hard knocks". As a child, my opinion was seldom solicited, and it was expected to align with the rather conventional views of my father (with a sixth grade education & fundamentalist indoctrination). So, I reached adulthood with a scarcity of clear ideas of my own, and little confidence in those few I had mulled-over inwardly.

Over the years my philosophical dialogues were primarily within myself. Even in college, anyone who I dared to suggest a non-standard idea to, would usually exhibit expressions of incomprehension. Consequently, at retirement age, when began to write my thesis, I didn't even know what I thought until I saw what I wrote. However, I still see my harmless-but-unconventional ideas reflected back at me, often with the same eye-glaze of incomprehension, or a grimace of acute disgust.

In my own mind, the general information-based thesis is clear & comprehensive. But then I'm viewing it from my own eccentric perspective, founded primarily on little-known "facts" of Quantum & Information theory. Which have turned the common-sense classical worldview upside down. So, I've had to learn the hard way, how to summarize a complex-but-inter-related system in words that convey novel ideas, without seeming to be deranged or dismissive of "settled science". Since the core concepts of Holism & Consciousness are similar those of Eastern religions, I'm forced to deny, A>implications that I've had the wool pulled over my eyes by pop-religion gurus, or B> accusations that I'm in science-denial.

BTW, your link to the Faggin interview, was right on time. It noted the overlooked aspect of reality in conventional Science : the mind of the observer. And, IMHO, that is where Philosophy still has a role to play in modern science. For example, I consider Psychology, Sociology, and the other "soft" sciences to be essentially inwardly-focused philosophical inquiries, with a statistical veneer of hard science. :smile:

I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple. — Nickolasgaspar

Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics & Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".

Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with an appeal to authority of "its philosophy". I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical belief system known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as-if it's the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra. I have previously pointed-out some examples.

For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science & philosophy. And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. Admittedly, I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. Of the 174 listed in the link below, only Daniel Dennett & Thomas Nagel books are in my personal library. I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae.

However, I came late to philosophy, only a few years ago. And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, including philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of establishment scientific concern. I admit that, due to impertinence, most of your criticisms of my ignorance or idiocy fall on deaf ears. Fortunately, there are a few on this forum with similar interests, that I can dialogue with. So, I remain open to discourse, but not to argue "true science" with you. And, I'm not motivated to seek your approval. :cool:


List of 20th century philosophers :
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/20th-century-philosophers.php

Vienna Circle :
Thus the struggle between metaphysics and scientific world-conception is not only a struggle between different kinds of philosophies, but it is also—and perhaps primarily—a struggle between different political, social, and economical attitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle

The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back :
Preaching, denouncing or shouting ‘Science works!’ won’t help. Neither will throwing around statistics, graphs and charts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w

I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple. — Nickolasgaspar

Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".

Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with the appeal to authority of "its philosophy". I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical position known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra.

For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science and philosophy. And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. But I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. of the 174 list in the link below, only Daniel Dennett and Thomas Nagel books are in my library. The others, I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae.

However, I came late to philosophy, only a few years ago. And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, and philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of scientific concern. So, I admit that most of your criticisms of my ignorance or idiocy fall on deaf ears. Fortunately, there are a few on this forum with similar interests, that I can dialogue with. Hence, I'm not motivated to seek your approval.



List of 20th century philosophers :
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/20th-century-philosophers.php

Thus the struggle between metaphysics and scientific world-conception is not only a struggle between different kinds of philosophies, but it is also—and perhaps primarily—a struggle between different political, social, and economical attitudes.


The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back :
Preaching, denouncing or shouting ‘Science works!’ won’t help. Neither will throwing around statistics, graphs and charts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w

-I don't know when you stop beating your wife? can you see the problem in your initial statement?
And how entering that home will allow you to know???
What methods will you use to FALSIFY that universal negative statement? — Nickolasgaspar

What's wrong with what I said? There's this house. I want to know if it's haunted. Don't I have to go inside the house to check if it is or no?

Likewise, if I wanted to know if there's an ultimate truth, a ToE, wouldn't I have to look for it "everywhere" to come to the conclusion that there is one (I discover it) or that there isn't one (Your search - ToE - did not match any documents).

Remember the Null Hypothesis and the "statistical significance"?
"there is a house" is a pretty common statement. I can accept that since I know as an objective fact that houses exist.
In there case we usually want to see how well kept and clean, or what color the walls are or how spacious, how tall the ceilings are etc etc. There is nothing significant about these properties.

Now you say "I want to know if it's haunted", a property that has NEVER been objectively verified to be a possibility, so we can not even calculate a probability..not to mention a significant one!
The problem is that you accept a claim that has never been verified as possible.
You are poisoning the well (fallacy) by assuming a possible value to an unfounded claim.
You are also assuming that by going in you WILL be able to check whether it is hunted...as if the claim is similar to mold or spider webs.
You have NOT defined the concept, its ontology,how it manifest or the methods you will use so that you can objectively prove that the house is haunted.
You see , your example is great because you are addressing an irrational belief that is powerful enough to inform your actions!(waste time looking for whatever you think you should).
This is why rational evaluation is important before accept a claim which isn't objectively verified.
I am not saying that "haunted houses" is an impossibility, but the Null Hypothesis informs us that a claim must be accepted only after its objective demonstration.

Again, its like me meeting you for the first time and telling you "I must come at your place and check if you have indeed stopped beating your wife".
I assume that you once beat your wife and I assume that if I came at your place I will be able to observe facts that will verify or falsify your claim!
And in the case of wife beating...we do know that its is not only possible but we have numbers to arrive to a statistical possibility.
Haunted houses have never been proven to be a possible state, so probability is off the discussion and no one can suggest objective ways to detect and verify such a phenomenon.

Likewise, if I wanted to know if there's an ultimate truth, a ToE, wouldn't I have to look for it "everywhere" to come to the conclusion that there is one (I discover it) or that there isn't one (Your search - ToE - did not match any documents). — Agent Smith

btw Ultimate truth has nothing to do with my objection or your example. The goal of the example is to point out how rational or irrational a belief is and what default position should inform our actions.

Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity". — Gnomon

- First of all "Empirical Science" isn't a philosophical caprice but a Pragmatic Necessity and no "crawling out" is talking place.
Science is based on the philosophical principles of Methodological Naturalism and Objectivism.
Empiricism is only a side effect since, currently, is the only method we have that can provide objective results(observations and methodologies available for everyone to check and reproduce).
So by saying that Philosophy has an opportunity to crawl out from an methodology that can provide objective evidence and independently verifiable conclusions...that doesn't sound like an opportunity, but like time travel back to the dark ages where subjective human superstitions and biases were guiding our intellectual inquiries.
To be honest supernaturalists and idealist still exist and we are aware of the epistemic failure of those philosophical principles (because there are zero verified epistemology based on those assumptions).

Now you stated that "Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer".
Again no elevation has occurred.The scientific theory Quantum Physics (quantum fields theory) and information theory say nothing about "the mind of the observer". That is the input by bad philosophy . Those are pseudo philosophical interpretations that are not justified by our current observations.
Its an interpretation based on pseudo philosophical supernatural principles (assuming mind properties as agents). Its an unjustifiable one, they must first be demonstrated and then assumed as auxiliary principles.

Your claim is a text book example of Bad Philosophy taking advantage of our current limited understanding and observations on a phenomenon.
Every time humans have reached their epistemic and observational limitations they never hesitated to make up a magical answer.(Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, fathers of early QM etc etc).
I know its only the first paragraph of your post but it is important to see that you need to be alerted and not allow unfounded Presumptions to seek in our auxiliary principles and let them affect our interpretation. More importantly you shouldn't be satisfied and accept interpretations, but you should strive for Descriptions.
There is a good reason why in QM we have more than 10 Quantum interpretations but none of them is identified as a Descriptive theory. That is because we, currently, are unable to observe and verify any of those interpretations.

Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with the appeal to authority of "its philosophy". — Gnomon

-You just did by pointing out that we should accept as a legit philosophical statement that QM and Information theory point to "the mind-of-the-observer", when none of our facts support such a claim.
This is a supernatural claim(pseudo philosophical) and you suggest that we should accept it because some in Academic Philosophy reproduce this speculation.

Almost all the threads in this philosophical forum present concepts like ,gods, transcended egos and minds, souls etc etc as if they are supported by adequate, credible and objective epistemology so a philosophical discussion is justified.
How about Nessy and Big foot and smurfs...while we are there?
The epistemic surface is as thin as the one supporting the evil eye, goblins and the tooth fairy,
The difference between supernatural claims is the volume of anecdotal stories and the number of believers. There is no real material for a discussion to take place, expand our understand and produce a wise claim on the ontology of those entities.

I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. — Gnomon

-By using the term " traditional" you in essence "demand"(in a good way) respect as if it is an authority.
That in fact is a logical fallacy (argument from tradition).
Tradition is not a demarcation mark for what qualifies as philosophy or not.

That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical position known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. — Gnomon

-That is not true because Philosophy is accepted as the main tool in science and I it isn't assumed that science is the only tool of epistemology and without limits in what it can achieve.
The problem with "traditional'' philosophy is that it doesn't demarcate pseudo philosophy from philosophy. "Why" questions are mixed with how/what questions, meaning that teleology pollutes explanations about nature(intention and purpose projected in to nature).
In short things that need to be demonstrated are presumed. Unfalsifiable realms are used an answers, subjective interpretations are accepted on face value due to chronicling and rules of logic (null hypothesis,demarcation, burden, parsimony, fallacies) are ignored..
Scientism has nothing to do with those really bad practices and really low standards of evaluation!

Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. — Gnomon

-The crisis expands through ages....this is why Natural Philosophy was forced to split from the academy. Some Philosophers saw that things were going nowhere, anyone could presume anything he wanted, they constantly ignored the guidlines provided by established epistemology and objectivity didn't play a role in their evaluations. This is what we still can observe by Idealists and super-naturalists.

By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra. — Gnomon

-Again Science and scientism have nothing to do with the issue in hand. We are talking about Objective and Verifiable auxiliary principles in our philosophical interpretations VS Subjective and Unverifiable principles. We are talking about high standards of evidence and evaluation VS no standards at all and we are referring to epistemic foundations vs faith based foundations in Metaphysics.
(wow this is only the second paragraph....that will end up long. sorry for that).

For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and ↪180 Proof
are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science and philosophy — Gnomon

-I cannot really accept that because I know all the "holes" in my knowledge, especially in philosophical chronicling. To be honest my field of interest is Logic and logic without knowing our current knowledge is impossible to be applied...well it is possible but the result is questionable.
So my main point is that all philosophers need to respect Logic , its rules, criteria and principles.
With that as their foundation they can look up establish epistemology and guide their philosophy by using new data (science) and checking for logical fallacies, unfounded assumptions and invalid arguments.

And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. — Gnomon

-Well we all know how stupid we are...don't worry. Our differences, probably are not in our mental abilities but in the methods and in our auxiliary principles we use which force our syllogisms to drift apart.
I guess you are willing to use principles based on Metaphysical worldviews. I don't , my principles do not pressupose any ontology but they accept the ontology we can describe. They are based on the acknowledgement of the limitations we find in our Observations and our methods of investigations. The rules of logic force me not remain within the real I can examine (naturaristic) and reject all explanations from hypothetical realms, not because they are wrong, but because we don't have a way to evaluate them.(yet).

That is the whole difference in our approach.

But I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. of the 174 list in the link below, only Daniel Dennett and Thomas Nagel books are in my library. The others, I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae. — Gnomon

-Not really, you are good.
My approach on the topic of Science,Philosophy, bad science bad philosophy and Magic/religion is mainly through Moocs. I must say I have taken more than 120 Moocs back from the day when "Universtity Tunes" was a thing on the Apple OS and Universities had some courses only on their main sites. Before that I was lucky enough to have access to books (mum,grandma) so I got in to science really early. My first ever book was on the theory of evolution lol.
The other advantage I had was, we moved in Greece when I was really young. In Greek schools, philosophy has a special position in the curriculum. So I was exposed to basic ideas really small and learned about Aristotle and Plato and the battle of their views.
Then I learned that Aristotle was the "cause" behind the European renaissance and I though how that can be the case...have you read his Physika lol??? IT turns out that his work in systematizing and organizing Logic and Philosophy was what fueled the Revolution of human thought.
I was sold. Logic became my priority (having an pretty irrational father also played a huge role lol).
You can imagine my surprise when I started interacting with other people in my circle and online forums and finding out that almost everyone ignores Aristotle works on Logic, the systematization of the Philosophical Method, how easily they ignore or avoid to use our epistemology as our starting point and how irrelevant most of them view the Basic Rules of logic in their thinking!
This guy gave us pretty lousy Philosophy but he provided a master key that allow us to unlock our ability to do really good Philosophy and lock up our subjective biases and everything that can derail our syllogisms.

And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, including philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of establishment scientific concern. — Gnomon

So here is a question. You are interested in Information in Consciousness, but you say that you are sill on the margins of establishment scientific concern.
How do you think you are going to be familiar with our current epistemology on Consciousness without a scientific concern? I mean have you took any Neuroscience or cognitive science courses on the topic? if not...Where are your philosophical positions based on? Where do you get your material that guide your philosophical thought?
Are you sure that the philosophers you read have full access on the latest epistemology and they are in agreement with the Philosophy within Cognitive Science?
This would make a really interesting discussion since we all form a belief based on what we choose to study.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Here's the deal:

Hypothesis: House E is haunted.

Testing the hypothesis: Visiting E to find out if it's haunted or not.

That's as simple as it gets in my universe.

The Null Hypothesis is, as I told you, on the whole about causality and requires an experimental or other kind of study. To establish a causal link between cancer and smoking would require us to use H₀ (Smoking doesn't cause cancer). The Alternative Hypothesis (H₁). We then look at the incidence/prevalence of cancer among smokers. If the rate therein determined is not that different from the baseline, H₀ is true, there's no causal link between coffin nails and malignancies. If not, H₀ is rejected i.e. H₁ it is.

Let's revisit H₀ in re God's existence. This isn't a causal query and so H<sub>0[/0] is N/A. I'm sure you'll understand why.


Good day. Thanks a million.</sub>

3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc. — Agent Smith

Science doesn't take anything from granted. Indeed those are philosophical question on the ontology of a phenomenon, but not all of them are metaphysical.
For example causality is a phenomenon that is observed and verified and described by science. Philosophy takes this information and try to understand what it means for our world, what are the implications, the importance and how can we use it to produce further knowledge. Our philosophical conclusions are passed back to science and that allows us to make predictions based on the observed qualities of causality.
There is nothing beyond our knowledge in the phenomenon of causality except of a "why" it exists question....which is not a serious philosophical question since it introduces teleology and purpose in a natural phenomenon.

In the case of time and space, since the phenomena being described by those concepts are far more vast and complex, Philosophy is needed to piece together all our observations,data and frameworks.
On there own they are not really "metaphysical" questions, since both describe observable natural phenomena.
Time : the quantifiable phenomenon of processes not happening all at once and with with different pace
Space: the phenomenon where physical structures with different sizes that do not occupying the same point at once allow the emergence of an area with spatial quantifiable properties.
Metaphysics can go on and try to ask questions about the ontology of the medium (matter) that is responsible for both phenomena.
BUt we need to understand that the same questions are shared by Science and Philosophy, the difference between them is that when we don't have the data and answers,we are just doing science. When we do have data and answers....that is Science.

The Null Hypothesis is, as I told you, on the whole about causality and requires an experimental or other kind of study. To establish a causal link between cancer and smoking would require us to use H0 (Smoking doesn't cause cancer). The Alternative Hypothesis (H1). — Agent Smith

Why are you returning to this attempt to limit the applicability of a universal logical rule?
Did I send you a video that explains the Logical principle outside statistical applications?
Did you watch it?

The Null hypothesis isn't limited to causality!!!! Causality happens to be the quality we mainly investigate in medical statistics, because this is what interests us, but the principles has applications everywhere there is a need for establishing a default position.

You need to understand that Null Hypothesis job is to needs to keep our explanations in line with our current established data/facts. This is what we identify as the Default Position.
If our additional studies and foundings link our data to a new explanation only then we are justified to adopt the new one as our default position!
The same is true in statistics. The default position is the average number based on the available data which means the rejection from the start any statistical significance linking the tested cause and the effect.
If our additional studies provide a statistical significance then we link the cause to the effect.

This isn't difficult. Logic isn't affected by our applications.

I'll get back to you later Nickolasgaspar.