First off, I'm not uninformed on these matters. I've read all this before, and I don't need a lecture. I was in your shoes at one time.
>he first thing they do is convert the hypothesis to a NULL hypothesis and then they try to DISPROVE it.
Yes, you do a straightforward bijective transformation using no new information, and apparently everything is different. That's not important. You're just highlighting a duality between proof and disproof. You're proving invalidity rather than validity. It's still proof.
As for the rest of your post: Appeal to authority is not an argument. Appeal to popularity is not an argument. These people are wrong. That's essentially what I'm arguing.
I'm not claiming that everyone agrees with me. So why would I debate that? Why are you debating that?
>he first thing they do is convert the hypothesis to a NULL hypothesis and then they try to DISPROVE it.
Yes, you do a straightforward bijective transformation using no new information, and apparently everything is different. That's not important. You're just highlighting a duality between proof and disproof. You're proving invalidity rather than validity. It's still proof.
As for the rest of your post: Appeal to authority is not an argument. Appeal to popularity is not an argument. These people are wrong. That's essentially what I'm arguing.
I'm not claiming that everyone agrees with me. So why would I debate that? Why are you debating that?