There are three common mistakes made when debating hypotheses. The first mistake is assuming the proliferation of endless hypotheses negates the one being discussed. Suppose I have hypothesized that a kibble diet contributes to insulinoma and other dietary disease. Does offering an alternative hypothesis show the first hypothesis is wrong? Absolutely not! Neither has been tested, which means neither has been disproved. But, it goes deeper than this. The alternative hypothesis has to be feasible, the assumption it is based on has to be testable, and it has to be able to explain the observable data. A hypothesis that is unfeasible, or cannot be tested is void. A hypothesis that cannot explain the observable data has been falsified. A second mistake is the idea that because something is defined as a hypothesis, it is just another idea. While all hypotheses are ideas, not all ideas are hypotheses. "What ifs" are NOT hypotheses UNLESS they can explain observable data, have testable implications, and are feasible. For example, saying a natural diet is better than a kibble diet is a hypothesis because it is feasible, testable, and can explain observable data. Saying 'some other' diet may be better than a natural diet IS NOT a hypothesis because it is not testable. A common and related problem is the suggestion that just because an idea is a hypothesis, it is unproven. Actually, it hasn't yet been falsified! More importantly, if something is a tested hypothesis, it has ALREADY withstood the rigors of investigation, and is far more than just another idea! Suggesting a natural diet is better is not just a hypothesis, but one that has withstood millions of years of testing via natural selection. The more a hypothesis has withstood the testing process, the stronger it becomes. It would take an overwhelming amount of data to disprove the hypothesis that a natural diet isn't the best for a ferret. Just offering alternative, untested explanations doesn't cut the mustard. A third common mistake in debate is offering alternative hypotheses based on formal analogies rather than relational ones, especially when the point being argued against is based on a relational analogy. For example, some people suggesting feeding chicken bones to ferrets is dangerous because dogs have had so many observable problems. This is an example of a formal analogy because it is based on inference, not on observations. The analogy is very weak, made weaker when it is pointed out the way dogs eat chicken bones, the anatomy of the dog mouth and throat, and the sizes of the two species negate many of the problems. Observable data suggest ferrets CAN safely eat chicken bones, which easily falsifies the hypothesis. If a relational analogy for bone eating was used from a species having the same size and characteristics of a ferret (polecats, mongeese, civets, wild cats), the conclusions would have been vastly different, and it would have been able to explain the observable data (ferrets safely eat bone all the time). The problem was in using a formal analogy where a relational one was demanded. The vast majority of alternative hypotheses offered on the FML fall in this category of mistake. The importance analogs to ferrets is profound. Even though there are gaps in knowledge about ferrets, there are numerous studies of the same problems in other animals (including humans). These studies can be safely used as relational analogs to build explanations of what is happening in ferrets. For example, ad libitum diets have been shown to decrease lifespan and contribute to an increase in tumors, lymphoma, autoimmune problems, obesity, and coronary, hepatic, pancreatic, and gastrointestinal disease in ALL species tested; using the data to suggest the same is true in ferrets is clearly a relational analogy (or even a direct homolog). This makes the evidence extremely difficult to dispute. The problem isn't an example as clear-cut as the ad libitum diet example, but when we aren't sure if the analogy is of the formal or relational type. Pet food makers have used the success of kibbled diets in one species as a relational analog to feed the same type of diet in ferrets. The problem is, because of specific dietary adaptations in ferrets, the analogy should have been a formal one. In some cases, the use of analogy might have to be suspended until the exact relationship is confirmed by independent testing. In those cases where a study in one species can be shown with observable data to be a relational analogy with the ferret, then the use of the information is appropriate, and may be invaluable. Just because the data was generated in other species isn't an ipso jure admission it may be faulty; it is up to the opposition to show the analog is inappropriate. Bob C [Posted in FML issue 3949]