Quote:
Originally Posted by FredSnerd
Steven
I don’t believe anyone here is (a) “assuming” that our current level of understanding on the speed of light is deficient. We are “allowing for the possibility” that our current level of understanding is deficient. There is a world of difference. We aren’t (b) “assuming” that someone in the future is going to come up with a better idea, experiment or observation. We are allowing for the possibility that someone will; And as for (c) when is a fully informed opinion decided? Well you know, maybe there is no such thing as certain. Evolution is perhaps the most respected scientific theory ever but I don’t think anyone says that it is certain. It is constantly subjected to challenge and so it should be. Newtons notions of gravity were the bible until Eisenstein came along. That’s true science in my opinion.
Regards
Claude
|
I was highlighting the logical fallacy "
argumentum ad ignorantiam" where a premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
The assumption that today's theories will be replaced in the future because history proves this is an example of this fallacy.
Steven