How can you possibly calculate probabilities without having made reliable observations of this sort of thing in the first place? That's not just bad science, it's logically fallacious. It's begging the question.
It's also working the scientific method in reverse. You are demanding that the null hypothesis be proven, but in science the null hypothesis is de facto true until it is disproven by experimental evidence. That is how you test hypotheses: by first assuming that no relationship exists.
I mean, I could claim that green swans exist, and never find them. That does not prove that they do not exist, as I may have simply looking in the wrong places. But if I state that they do not exist, now that hypothesis is falsifiable, I can test that. By finding one green swan, I have falsified my hypothesis.
If I do not operate in this fashion, I could make all kinds of wild assumptions that could never be critically examined. That will distance myself from science and the ability to reason. Are you starting to see where I am coming from?
__________________
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
|