Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.

I’ve already done that!

In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.

Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!

That is how science works.

If only!

Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.

I’ve already done that!

In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight or the minuscule attraction we measure between some types of matter.. Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!

That is how science works.

If only!

Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.

I’ve already done that!

In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize, identify, and/or refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight. Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!

That is how science works.

If only!

Then present a better explanation and validate it with experiments.

I’ve already done that!

In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize and refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight. Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!

That is how science works.

If only!

I’ve already done that!

In any case, coming up with an alternative is not necessary to criticize and refute existing pseudoscience or incorrect science. For example, gravitation has never been, and cannot be, experimentally verified nor can the belief that it is responsible for weight. Newton understood this fully, which is why he famously didn’t even feign a hypothesis that could be experimentally verified, let alone go about creating an experiment to test it! He well understood it was folly, “philosophically unsound” - his words [i.e. unscientific], and attributed its mechanism to the christian god. A very, ahem, scientific “theory” indeed!

That is how science works.

If only!