Editing 1625: Substitutions 2

| Scientifically, the fact that there is 'no indication' that a theorem is correct does not positively prove the theorem wrong, it merely does not support it (assuming there are no actual counter-indications, which is often the case with the more esoteric ideas). This is often seized upon by those trying to promote a pseudoscience, in that their chosen idea "has not been proven to be wrong" (and yet, conversely, "it's just a theory" is incorrectly used to refute something that has valid scientific backing). Moreover, hearsay and bad experimental practices are often cited as 'proof'. A crackpot idea may thus be unsupported by valid science (there is 'no indication' of its truth) and yet its supporters insist upon there being 'lots of signs' that it is true, selectively using only ambiguous results that (to them, at least) lend credence to it being a fact. The substitution of 'no indication' with 'lots of signs' thus automatically converts the expected conservative and cautious stance on some disputed issue or other into the weasel-words phrasing that the issue's supporters may start using in their own propaganda.