Affirming the consequent is a fallacy because you have not ruled out that something else can cause Q.  All you have with "P -> Q; Q" is Q, not what caused Q.  Luckily, this is not what the scientific method does, and people who claim otherwise don't know how to do science of any kind.

This argument is a straw man, and equivocation.  The"if P then Q" step with the hypothesis is about creating a model; the hypothesis being correct does not CAUSE the Q to be correct.  Some other P is causing Q.  They are trying to equivocate a logical fallacy with a (flawed) understanding of experimentation and model building.

It would be better to say "my hypothesis predicts that if P then Q.  I will then set up an experiment that generates situation P, and will check to see if Q is observed.  If P generates Q, my hypothesis is supported."

Science is sometimes unprecise by explaining phenomena by already known and proven theories, until a majority of it is explained. Remaining, unexplained aspects of phenomena are left to a later research.
This creates problems, because
The unexplained aspects may be of vital importance
The accepted theory doesn't cover these aspects
And this theory is incoherent with a true basis of the phenomena.
However, because a majority of it is already "explained", there's not enough of will to dig in there further and answers for problems from ignored aspects are searched somewhere else, where they aren't.
I'd call it a conservative thinking.

For example, nuclear fission. Fast neutrons break the heavy atoms' cores and makes them split on more light elements, producing energy and some radiation in the process. Neat, isn't it? Seems so completely explained...
Next thing is a degenerative disease, like Alzheimer's syndrome. It was known long ago, but it's intense occurence came with occurence of nuclear fission in the world, in form of reactors and bombs.
The hidden truth is, that material existence contains four more states of matter, called etheric-material. Unnatural manipulation, like it is in reactors, produces a deadly radiation on all material levels, not just alpha, beta, gamma and delta we know, but also interferes with etheric-material levels. Our reactors are really well protected by solid-material lead bricks, liquid heavy water and so on, but there are no etheric-material protective layers, and I doubt we will ever have any. When we would be able to build them, our technology would be so advanced, that we would already have better energy sources than nuclear fission.
So, etheric-material radiation interferes with people's etheric-material body, which is connected with nerve and endocrine system. Alzheimer's disease, which cause is still unknown, is in most of cases caused by this unrecognized kind of radiation. The cause is not likely to be discovered before a discovery of etheric body, which may take a few decades.

What's the point? We see a technology of nuclear fission as a mastered thing, and problems with Alzheimer's disease (and allergies) as completely different, unrelated problem, which will be surely soon solved by some kind of medical research. I call for more holistic way of seeing the world, as everything is related together. Also, more of tolerance is needed. We should support "crazy" ideas, keeping in mind that it's only a question of conventions. A cultural standards, which tells us what is "possible" or not, has absolutely no meaning for what is possible or not. Maintaining of a creative thinking is more important than keeping a scientific decorum. Those who finance projects should learn that. Science isn't completely objective, it's only one of ways of the world observation, if it should find answers on everything (and it should for the good of all) then it must take care of it's unhealthy inclination toward conservativeness.

Yes, Coast to Coast am is not a scientific program - neither was "In Searh Of" and those little papers they have in the supermarket right where the registers are are not scientific journals.

*waves the word game flag*

Word games appear in bold:

If you study that sentence closely, you'll see that you're being shortchanged. The reason is that correctness is built into the "if-statement" of the hypothesis. You can't do that. You can't build it into the "then-statement" either. Correctness is what you're testing for with a hypothesis. That's the whole idea. It doesn't make sense to set up an experiment to test whether you were correct about thinking you were correct.

Let's compare the word-game hypothesis to something more like a real one. We'll use an extremely easy sort of experiment. First let's look at a good elementary example:

Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that applying intense pressure to a spider using the bottom of my shoe will cause the spider to die.

*test theory*

Result: The spider died when intense pressure was applied to it using the bottom of my shoe, therefore applying intense pressure using the bottom of my shoe is likely to result in spider death.

*repeat test multiple times to confirm*

Result: Confirmed multiple times. Stomping on spiders leads to spider death.

Here is what that test would look like if science were as shady as the interlocutor implies:

Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that there will be a dead spider. If my hypothesis is correct, then dead spiders will be observed.

[insert anything, whatever you want, doesn't matter, that leads to a dead spider being present]

Results: Look. A dead spider. I guess I was right. Science enriches another!

Good try.