I wonder if it’s more about a different way of thinking, than a difference of opinion. I’ve never had a maybe one day discussion with anyone from a science background. That might have relevance.
See it’s really not about a difference of opinion at all. Because I don’t see there being any opinion involved. Which is also relvent, as those putting forward maybe one day points of view often claim that it’s all about differing opinions.
Let’s say it is.
I’ll quote Richard Dawkins
“When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.”
The ‘argument’ is about the speed of light one day maybe being broken. Again (I get into this argument a lot)
Now let’s start off assuming either side could be wrong. That leaves us with two possibilities
- The speed of light will never be broken
- The speed of light will maybe one day be broken.
Now if this was a differance of opinion either side could equally be right. But it’s not. So one side is at the very least more wrong than the other
- Lots of scientific proof and supporting evidence (including the fact the universe is working) that the speed of light is a constant
NothingA few odd things we don’t understand that may or may not be related to the speed of light
So if we were to be generous and assign 1% to the speed of light being broken (i.e. not constant) then I’m still more likely to be right by near on two orders of magnitude. And that’s being really generous. The reality is that number (1) significantly outweighs number (2) by such a large order that number (2) is deemed false.
In fact the crux of the maybe one day is that whilst (1) appears to be correct, based on past experience we cannot dismiss (2) as ever being zero.
Which sounds true, but is also false, because if we could apply an “Reductio ad absurdum” argument and I can then say
Maybe one day we will prove that we will never be able to exceed the speed of light
Which holds true if we accept maybe one day arguments, which is then clearly false as it conducts the maybe one day argument, thereby showing that maybe one day arguments are not proof of anything.
And if you followed that all I’m really impressed.
The crux is, that “maybe one day” is a statement, not a truth.
It has nothing to do with being open minded, having a healthy scepticism and nothing to do with science.
“maybe one day we will exceed the speed of light” has no more meaning than “maybe one day we wont exceed the speed of light”.
Both can’t be true. Hence one must be.
I’m backing the one with all the science behind it.