Or, to put it another way, failure to offer a coherent refutation of an incoherent hypothesis doesn’t represent evidence for incoherence hypothesis.
Could you edit this? I can’t decipher it.
[eta: Cyan and Pavitra have come up with nice obviously-true statements that are textually similar to the original bungled sentence and similar in meaning, but I can’t be sure of what you meant.]
Sorry, that was a messed up edit—I was at first writing “doesn’t represent evidence for incoherence” and then messed up the edit to “doesn’t represent evidence for the incoherent hypothesis”.
More colloquially, if somebody can’t coherently answer your incoherent question, it doesn’t mean that the viewpoint which created the question is therefore sensible or true.
How about, “If I offer a not-even-wrong refutation of your not-even-wrong hypothesis, you can’t take the not-even-wrongness of the refutation as evidence for the hypothesis.”
Could you edit this? I can’t decipher it.
[eta: Cyan and Pavitra have come up with nice obviously-true statements that are textually similar to the original bungled sentence and similar in meaning, but I can’t be sure of what you meant.]
Sorry, that was a messed up edit—I was at first writing “doesn’t represent evidence for incoherence” and then messed up the edit to “doesn’t represent evidence for the incoherent hypothesis”.
More colloquially, if somebody can’t coherently answer your incoherent question, it doesn’t mean that the viewpoint which created the question is therefore sensible or true.
How about, “If I offer a not-even-wrong refutation of your not-even-wrong hypothesis, you can’t take the not-even-wrongness of the refutation as evidence for the hypothesis.”
I read it to mean that once one has demonstrated a hypothesis to be incoherent, one does not then also need to demonstrate it to be false.