Here is few article, one spotted by Michael McCulloch (the physicis behind MiHsC Emdrive/NoDarkMatter theory).
They focus on reasoning methods for very complex cases, and spot some tactic used by non rational actors, and problem with usual rational methods.
There are probably toos to understand why LENr is so much rejected, why absurd excuses are so much accepted, why evidences are so much denied despite being there unstained...
I don't have much time, not probably competences, to analyse all tha is said by this author, but I suspect it can be great.
Heteroduction in contrast, would coalesce all these same anomalous observations (see below) into a competing paradigm; observations which either are unlike anything we have ever seen, or even contradict our current prior art on the subject. Heteroduction in this instance serves to develop a grounded-but-novel explanatory schema for these into a new competing construct (hopefully later hypothesis, if it can survive fake skepticism). Quantized Inertia stands as a key example of heteroduction in action.
Linear InductionDark Matter – a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is inductively implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen.1
A person conducting heteroduction would sound warning on this line of reasoning – if enforced as a truth, rather than as the null hypothesis (note that I am not arguing against Dark Matter as a construct, simply using its deliberation as exemplary here).
HeteroductionQuantized Inertia (QI) – previously known by the acronym MiHsC (Modified Inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect), is the concept first proposed in 2007 by physicist Mike McCulloch, as an alternative to general relativity and the mainstream Lambda-CDM model. Quantized Inertia is posited to explain various anomalous effects such as the Pioneer and flyby anomalies, observations of galaxy rotation which forced Dark Matter’s introduction and propellantless propulsion experiments such as the EmDrive and the Woodward effect. It is a theory of inertia-like resistance arising from quantum effects, which serves to function in the place of dark matter – as the necessary conjecture explaining ‘missing matter/gravitation’ in our cosmological models.2...True science challenges its null hypothesis, and this construct/hypothesis challenges the null hypothesis within a reasonable basis of soundness. This does not mean that QI therefore as an idea is correct, rather that it stands as a potential foundational stone inside a Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shift. The mode of inference and the method of investigation remain valid, despite whether or not the QI alternative pans out to be true in the end. Is is indeed science....
The contrathetic impasse is a lens tool used by intelligence agents to spot agency at play. Agency which believes that it has gone undetected, will eventually become abusively habitual both in regard to self and target.5
/philosophy : hypothesis reduction : paradox-paralysis/ : a paradoxical condition wherein multiple competing hypotheses and/or ad hoc plausible explanations bear credible inductive evidence and research case history – yet each/all hypotheses or explanations have been falsified/eliminated as being sufficiently explanatory for more than a minor portion of a defined causal domain or observation set. For instance, the MiHoDeAL explanation contains 5 very credible possible explanations for challenging phenomena. However, the sum total of those 5 explanations often only amounts to explaining maybe 5 – 15% of many persistent paranormal phenomena. The presumption that one of those explanations is comprehensively explanatory, is a trick of pseudoscience. Another new hypothesis is therefore demanded in the circumstance of a contrathetic impasse paradox.
Causes or influences which contribute to a contrathetic impasse:*
1. Foundational assumptions/investigation are flawed or have been tampered with.
2. Agency has worked to fabricate and promote falsifying or miscrafted information as standard background material.
3. Agency has worked to craft an Einfach Mechanism (Omega Hypothesis) from an invalid null hypothesis.
4. Agency has worked to promote science of psychology, new popular theory or anachronistic interpretation spins on the old mystery.
5. SSkeptics have worked to craft and promote simple, provisional and Occam’s Razor compliant conclusions.
6. Agency has worked to foist ridiculous Imposterlösung constructs in the media.
7. Agency has worked to foist shallow unchallenged ad hoc explanations in the media.
8. SSkeptics seem to have organized to promote MiHoDeAL constructs in the media.
9. There exist a set of repeatedly emphasized and/or ridiculously framed Embargo Hypotheses.
10. Agency has worked to promote conspiracy theory, lob & slam Embargo Hypotheses as an obsession target to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics to the mystery. The reason this is done is not the confusion it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line regarding the Omega Hypothesis.
And finally, this one that reminds me something...
Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants
I neither want to understand your observation or contention, nor do I regard it as acceptable for consideration unless I see solid conclusive empirical underpinning; much as I hold for all the things I regard as true. Until it is proved, I will allow no language of science to develop around the subject. Your terms and measures are all pseudo-science.
Wittgenstein says bullshit to the supposed objectivity of those who game process in this manner, and identifies three types of error to which the social epistemologist falls prey.