The same thing with this silly Canon vs. Nikon. Everyone keeps saying that higher sales doesn't necessarily reflect higher quality. Fine. But can you show me data and statistics to support that Canon's higher sales AREN'T due to superior product? Nobody has done that yet.
Though formally impeccable, this mentality may lead to very dangerous assumptions.
I might say that I'm using my paranormal powers to protect you from being attacked by tigers everyday. Now, while you can't prove that it's not true, I can point out the fact that indeed you've never been attacked by a tiger.
The point of the metaphore is: in absence of concrete evidence (either in one sense or the other), data cannot be held as reliable to make deductions.
Whenever a new theory is proposed, the author has to prove that it's true. Saying "prove it's not" generally speaking is never enough to hold something for true.