> Because it's completely untestable and short of someone "admitting" it we will never know for sure.
What a weird assertion.
It would be perfectly testable in any democratic country. Set up an independent commission, give access to the lab's complete files, perform a lot of tests on samples held there. That's exactly what would happen. Opposition parties would be demonstrating non stop demanding answers.
Instead this is China, a communist dictatorship with, on top of that, a strong culture of never losing face. It's only untestable because of that, not for epistemological reasons.
So it's testable, but only if we overthrow the CCP, make China a functional democracy, change Chinese culture to encourage openness, seize the records before they destroy them (which them might already have) and if we can't find those records or they say nothing incriminating, we accept tthat they're innocent because abcence of evidence is evidence of abcense?
In the context of a scientific hypothesis, "untestable" means that it can't be tested, not that someone doesn't want it to be tested. The fact that someone really really really doesn't want it to be tested does not make it untestable. It makes it untested but eminently testable.
What a weird assertion.
It would be perfectly testable in any democratic country. Set up an independent commission, give access to the lab's complete files, perform a lot of tests on samples held there. That's exactly what would happen. Opposition parties would be demonstrating non stop demanding answers.
Instead this is China, a communist dictatorship with, on top of that, a strong culture of never losing face. It's only untestable because of that, not for epistemological reasons.