04-October-2008, 12:02 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 136
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
Hi rcglinsk
I'm not very knowledgeable on astrophysics (thats why I read Q & A), but as for why BB is the dominant theory, this is because it is the 'best fit' for the observable phenomena. That doesnt mean its ideal, or that sometime in the future a new theory wont replace it. No-one is saying you have believe it, but it is the "best fit" at this point in time.
|
That line of reasoning has always struck me as a form of:
Quote:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.
In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.
|
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
So the issue is whether there is a prima facie case for accepting the big bang theory. I think the questions I posed go to the heart of that issue.
|