gipec

The null hypothesis is like the empty set: there's no claims inside it. The negation of a claim is another claim independent of the first.

Suppose I show you a jar containing a large number of coins and I claim the number of coins is even by just looking at the jar. Do you have evidence that I am correct? No! Just by looking at it I can't possibly know the exact number of coins. But this means that the logical negation of my claim is true ( the number of coins is odd?). Also no! Again, I can't know the exact number of coins by just looking at it.

So although there are only two possibilities, I have no evidence at all. And this means the only claim I can make is the null hypothesis: I don't know.

Absence of evidence is not, itself, an evidence of absence. In other words, if I don't have evidence that you committed a murder, it doesn't mean you're innocent. It means just that: I don't have evidence to convict you, and I must dismiss the case.

I didn't claim it's an asteroid. What I said, actually, is that any hypothesis asserted without evidence, and the autor of the post affirms that we have no evidence for the claim that it is an alien probe, can be dismissed without evidence.But to be fair, anyone claiming it's an asteroid must provide evidence supporting his/her claim. Otherwise it can also be dismissed without evidence.

The one making ANY claim has the burden of proof. The null hypothesis is the default whenever there's no evidence supporting any claim. It is basically a fancy way of saying we don't know what it is.

The one making the claim has the burden of proof. And following Hitchen's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Saying that is an alien probe it's not an argument, just an untested hypothesis. What follows on the paragraph is an argument, albeit a bad one.