It seems like there should be a paragraph after the Bayesian conservation of probabilities bit. Some kind of explanation. The way I’m interpreting your point, after that line, is that with the null hypothesis people, they are arguing over what is the default based on insufficient evidence, whereas they should be recognizing that any evidence for one is evidence against the other position. This seems to play into your italics point, that the hypotheses are battling, not neutral. Are you trying to say that we should treat conflicting hypotheses as dueling komodo dragons, or that Bayesian analysis is better at considering things neutrally, and therefore a better way to reach consensus? Or something different entirely?
It seems like there should be a paragraph after the Bayesian conservation of probabilities bit. Some kind of explanation. The way I’m interpreting your point, after that line, is that with the null hypothesis people, they are arguing over what is the default based on insufficient evidence, whereas they should be recognizing that any evidence for one is evidence against the other position. This seems to play into your italics point, that the hypotheses are battling, not neutral. Are you trying to say that we should treat conflicting hypotheses as dueling komodo dragons, or that Bayesian analysis is better at considering things neutrally, and therefore a better way to reach consensus? Or something different entirely?