If it has been given weight in the law, it is only because there is no better evidence to support the argument. I am not criticizing the scientists. A hypothesis is formulated, and it is tested through experimentation to see whether the null can be tentatively rejected. That is the beginning, not the end, of validating a theory. I am not researching this proposition, as you apparently are, so you should know better what subsequent studies have been made. If there are none, then the most we can say is that the findings are interesting but not conclusive. Personally, I do not even find them interesting myself, as I believe this is much too murky an area of subconscious thought or impulse to ever be satisfactorily proved ... and even if it were, I don't really see what the point is. If there is some quirky, subconscious reason that explains why some people don't like dogs ... who cares?
You do, I guess. All Karma was saying, quite correctly, is that you have no proof to offer of this point that for whatever reason interests you so much. (Hmmm ... could the reason be that you are a latent homophobic?) <gg> |
