Quote:
No Carl that is not what I am advocating. If you read my posts carefully you would note I use the terms now and current very deliberately.
I also mentioned the implications on causality if a premise is proven to be incorrect.
A premise is correct as it stands now. You can't go faster than light as theory stands now. A theory will be disproven through observation and experiment. Scientific method at work.
What you don't do is to assume the theory is incorrect to start with on the basis that it will be proven so in the future. That is an example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" at work.
|
I have read your statements carefully, and I know you have chosen your words carefully, but you are still making the assumption of what holds now will be the same in the future, even if you're only implying it in the spirit of your posts. I am assuming that this may or may not be the case. But neither of us knows what the actual outcome will be, because neither of us can predict what we'll know down the track. I am not disputing what is in current theory (remember that word...
theory). What I am saying is if there are alternative ideas floating about, that haven't been tested (which they haven't), that
may (and I stress, may) lead to a different answer to the questions being asked, then it is wise to do those experiments and see what happens. If they turn out false, then so be it. If they turn out true, then great. But don't presume that because we think we know what the truth is (from what we've done up until the present) now, that it'll necessarily remain so in the future. It may, it may not.
That statement is excluded from the argument. The whole question was prefaced by this:
assuming (for the sake of argument), so that negates that premise.
However, it is a possibility and one which would, by necessity, change the premise of the initial argument (if it was included).