Posted: Jan 07, 2018 5:20 pm
DavidMcC wrote:Burden of proof? There is no such thing as proof in science, Thomas, it's a maths concept.
And that's a silly semantic dodge.
The burden of proof is a concept; that someone making a claim has the job/burden of providing evidence for that claim.
DavidMcC wrote: In science, there is only strength of evidence.
Again, the burden of proof isn't about the mathematical concept, it's about the burden of proving (through evidence) that your claim is true.
DavidMcC wrote:The problem with cosmology is that it is mostly by mathematicians
Citation?
Are you not aware that cosmologist is a seperate field of study with it's own departments at universities world-wide? And that said field of study is not limited to mathematics.
DavidMcC wrote: who are looking for uses for their abstract mathematical proofs. That's not the way to do science, and it's why there is so much rubbish in cosmology.
Again, can you provide evidence for that claim, because that's not what I know of cosmology.