Reply to post: Re: "the speed of light could have been faster during the early universe"

Three certainties in life: Death, taxes and the speed of light – wait no, maybe not that last one

Pompous Git Silver badge

Re: "the speed of light could have been faster during the early universe"

But these guys went on and not only wrote out their theory but claim to have a test that can prove it. And they're putting that up in front of a community of people who are very capable of putting said theory to the test and either thoroughly trashing it or conclusively proving it
Name one scientific theory that has been "conclusively proven". Consider the following syllogism:

If my scientific theory is correct, then I will make certain observations.

I do make those observations, therefore my scientific theory is correct.

Now let's replace the premisses with different premisses.

If Hilary is pregnant, then Hilary is a female.

Hilary is female, therefore Hilary is pregnant.

This fallacy is known as affirming the consequent. You can believe as fervently as you want this this is a valid argument, but it's not.

Karl Popper proposed the following syllogism that is valid:

If my scientific theory is correct, then I will make certain observations.

I do not observe what my scientific theory predicted I should observe.

Therefore my scientific theory is incorrect.

Just as no amount of observing pregnant females can prove all females are pregnant, there will never be a sufficient number of corroborative observations to "conclusively prove" a scientific theory. We can only disprove a scientific theory.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019