I just had a good non-medical example. My Kobo Clara was at about half charge. I put it to sleep, then a couple hours later I woke it up and it said 1% charge. I recharged it partially, and next time I woke it, same thing. The two obvious hypotheses are that the battery failed and no longer holds a charge, or that the sleep setting wasn't working properly and that it was doing something that drained the battery quickly. I reset to factory defaults, and not only did the problem go away, but the battery went from showing a few % charge to fully charged. So, the correct answer was that a software error was misreading or miscomputing the charge level.
In terms of ME, there are some hypotheses that seem obvious. "I feel low in energy, therefore ME obviously mitochondrial dysfunction." "It started with a viral infection, therefore ME is obviously a viral infection that's still there."
The proper way to treat hypotheses is to devise a test, do the test, and accept the results. The improper way is to have faith in the hypothesis and keep coming up with inventive excuses for any data that doesn't support it, because, after all, it's obviously correct. So, if your hypothesis is that ME is due to mitochondrial dysfunction, propose some tests, such as "95% of PWME should show low ATP" or "<drug that increases ATP production> should effectively treat ME". If the results show that only 23% of PWME have low ATP, or that only a few people report partial improvement from the ATP boosting drug, then mark the hypothesis as 'false' and move on to a new one. Likewise, if a large percentage of PWME don't have a viral infection, and only a minority show improvement from antiviral treatments, write that one off too. No point in wasting resources on failed hypotheses.
I'd start a thread about 'outside the box' hypotheses, but I expect that most of us here lack the biological knowledge to come up with ones that might actually be true. I just posted a link about a specific protein that subtly reduces microglial activity. I certainly don't know enough about all the various proteins and how they might affect cells to come up with such a hypothesis.
Right now, I think resources should go towards finding reliable markers for ME. The obvious hypotheses have failed their tests, so we need more data to base new hypotheses on.
In terms of ME, there are some hypotheses that seem obvious. "I feel low in energy, therefore ME obviously mitochondrial dysfunction." "It started with a viral infection, therefore ME is obviously a viral infection that's still there."
The proper way to treat hypotheses is to devise a test, do the test, and accept the results. The improper way is to have faith in the hypothesis and keep coming up with inventive excuses for any data that doesn't support it, because, after all, it's obviously correct. So, if your hypothesis is that ME is due to mitochondrial dysfunction, propose some tests, such as "95% of PWME should show low ATP" or "<drug that increases ATP production> should effectively treat ME". If the results show that only 23% of PWME have low ATP, or that only a few people report partial improvement from the ATP boosting drug, then mark the hypothesis as 'false' and move on to a new one. Likewise, if a large percentage of PWME don't have a viral infection, and only a minority show improvement from antiviral treatments, write that one off too. No point in wasting resources on failed hypotheses.
I'd start a thread about 'outside the box' hypotheses, but I expect that most of us here lack the biological knowledge to come up with ones that might actually be true. I just posted a link about a specific protein that subtly reduces microglial activity. I certainly don't know enough about all the various proteins and how they might affect cells to come up with such a hypothesis.
Right now, I think resources should go towards finding reliable markers for ME. The obvious hypotheses have failed their tests, so we need more data to base new hypotheses on.