Until the HERS and W.H.I. trials tested and refuted the hypothesis that hormone-replacement therapy protected women against heart disease, Stampfer, Willett and their colleagues argued that these alternative explanations could not account for what they observed. They had gathered so much information about their nurses, they said, that it allowed them to compare nurses who took H.R.T. and engaged in health-conscious behaviors against women who didn’t take H.R.T. and appeared to be equally health-conscious. Because this kind of comparison didn’t substantially change the size of the association observed, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the association reflected the causal effect of H.R.T. After the W.H.I. results were published, says Stampfer, their faith was shaken, but only temporarily. Clinical trials, after all, also have limitations, and so the refutation of what was originally a simple hypothesis — that H.R.T. wards off heart disease — spurred new hypotheses, not quite so simple, to explain it.
Even the way epidemiologists frame the questions they ask can bias a measurement and produce an association that may be particularly misleading. If researchers believe that physical activity protects against chronic disease and they ask their subjects how much leisure-time physical activity they do each week, those who do more will tend to be wealthier and healthier, and so the result the researchers get will support their preconceptions. If the questionnaire asks how much physical activity a subject’s job entails, the researchers might discover that the poor tend to be more physically active, because their jobs entail more manual labor, and they tend to have more chronic diseases. That would appear to refute the hypothesis.
This quote comes from Joseph Henninger's article "" in this book. What is interesting to note is that Ditlef Nielsen's views on the origins of the Semitic religion are no longer considered valid by modern scholars. As we have noted earlier, Nielsen's triadic hypothesis was handed a devastating refutation by many scholars. Not surprisingly, Henninger describes Neilsen's theories as "dubious" and "too speculative" which "met with strong opposition". In other words, the reference which Morey used to bolster his case for Allah being a Moon-god refutes the same contention!
In spite of no evidence in either the past or present scholarship that Allah was a "Moon-god" of pre-Islamic Arabia, it has other Christian missionaries to loose hope; they have adopted what they term as a "take a scholarly "wait and see" approach". They had over 10 years to look into the evidences presented by Morey that allegedly claimed that Allah was a "Moon-god" and yet no missionary ever came with a serious refutation from the point of view of archaeology. In the last 10 years, however, the missionary websites promoting Morey's "Moon-god" hypothesis have increased dramatically. In order to minimize the impact of this hypothesis, the missionaries have claimed that the issue of Allah being a Moon-god does not even figure out as a "major argument" in the Christian community. They :
And even the success stories taught in epidemiology classes to demonstrate the historical richness and potential of the field — that pellagra, a disease that can lead to dementia and death, is caused by a nutrient-deficient diet, for instance, as Joseph Goldberger demonstrated in the 1910s — are only known to be successes because the initial hypotheses were subjected to rigorous tests and happened to survive them. Goldberger tested the competing hypothesis, which posited that the disease was caused by an infectious agent, by holding what he called “filth parties,” injecting himself and seven volunteers, his wife among them, with the blood of pellagra victims. They remained healthy, thus doing a compelling, if somewhat revolting, job of refuting the alternative hypothesis.