Originally Posted By: Orac
On the reverse side of that it has the most number of arbritatry omission of observations of any theory I have ever seen.

It's basic tennant appears to be if an observation does not match the theory then clearly the observation is wrong and we dismiss it ... as I said that isn't science you don't get to pick and choose observations :-)

Conventionalist twist is an apt description of your argument with your theory.

I repeat again: So far I haven't said that any observation is wrong. Can you give an example? I have given alternate explanations wherever possible, and concluded that the 'inference' is wrong.

I went through the site you have referred to (especially item no.7). Though I claim my hypothesis is a theory, it has not crossed the barrier to be called a 'theory'. For that, my hypothesis should be verified by the scientific community. If found false, then I may be tempted to resort to 'conventionalist twist'. In a way, 'conventionalist twist' has been resorted to in the case of Big-bang theory, string theory, and even to QM (this, I am not sure).