The burden of proof in arguments

[Sword]

This argument sums up both M-theory (string theory) and Loop quantum gravity debates, which have been happening all around the world in physics since about 1930. They can't prove anything, and can only say: "Well, my theory is more consistent with what we know. You haven't disproved it, so it might be true!"

Unlike general relativity, which has been proven, although some may believe otherwise.

Well that's the scientific method. It is up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to try and disprove their own cliams.

What's important is that the person who makes any claim has to do the work of finding the evidence that supports it.

[Aerith's Knight]

This argument sums up both M-theory (string theory) and Loop quantum gravity debates, which have been happening all around the world in physics since about 1930. They can't prove anything, and can only say: "Well, my theory is more consistent with what we know. You haven't disproved it, so it might be true!"

Unlike general relativity, which has been proven, although some may believe otherwise.

Well that's the scientific method. It is up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to try and disprove their own cliams.

What's important is that the person who makes any claim has to do the work of finding the evidence that supports it.

But that has proved impossible in those theories (at this time), however I suppose, at the time of Einstein, they didn't have the equipment to prove many claims in the field of relativity either.

It's fun to note that in the debate of light being particle, wave or both, the proof was given by someone trying to discredit the other side. You gotta give physicists that, they admit it when they're wrong.

[Sword]

Well, relativity could be worked out with maths. Evidently if the numbers add up then that's what's gonna happen when you test it.

[BarelySeeAtAll]

It's like the who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

Say, person A actually took the last cookie. Person B goes to take one but finds there is none. The only suspects must be person A and person C (let's say, person B was out all day).

Because person C adamantly insists they did not take it, and knows in themselves there was no posibility they took it, person B believes person A -must- have taken it.

Sure, C is telling the truth, but how DOES person B know this? Surely that would depend entirely on how much trust they have in this person, how well they know them, etc.

Yes this has happened to me. Yes I am person A.