Michael LewA statistical God htyiphesos.It has no explanatory power and is only a hinderance to scientific consideration of evidence. Is that really the reason that you consider likelihood functions to be unusable as pictures of experimental evidence? (Seems like a pretty poor excuse to me.)Would it be monster barring' to say that the scope of hypotheses should be restricted to those that predict something useful? To those that resemble those actually contemplated by the experimenter?