Oh, and uhh...

But the job of someone who wants to object is to offer a theory

Uhh - false.

It is NOT required to offer a theory to falsify another theory. NOT AT ALL.

For instance, if objects started suddenly floating in midair, NEWTONIAN GRAVITY WOULD BE FALSIFIED. It would NOT require a competing theory for newtonian gravity to fail to explain the absence of gravity AT ALL.

There is no reason to posit a falsifiable theory to question proveably debunked and invalid methodology, at all.

Those who wish to kick something which is already down can add the observation that Cantor explicitly claims that almost 2/3rds of the populace is substantially below the 50% mark, a near-impossibility...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800395

Yup, almost 2/3rds, if I linked the right article...

...but it is NOT neccesary. Pointing out that the methodology HAS BEEN CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE SAMPLING FOR CENTURIES and that THE VALIDITY OF INCARCERATED AND CLINICAL SAMPLES HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED is more than sufficient.

No alternative theory required, and in fact, it would be far more legitimizing than is deserved. :)