Le 31/03/2017 =E0 01:25, jacobnavia a =E9crit :
[[Mod. note -- I think the author's last sentence is quite similar to
a classic logical fallacy, conflating different "amounts of wrongness".
The late Isaac Asimov wrote a far better explanation of, and rejoinder
to, this fallacy than anything I could write, and I think his essay is
very relevant he

Isaac Asimov
"The Relativity of Wrong"
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...vityofWrong.ht

From that text:

quote
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and
"wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and
completely right is totally and equally wrong.
end quote

Kepler's laws are confirmed by stars moving around the central black
hole of the galaxy. Ellipses, as he proposed.Those laws are based on
observations that astronomers have done.

The fate of the observable Universe in X trillion years?

What observations can you present, that would authorize some human to
postulate anything about that?

This is ridiculous, with space telescopes only 25 years old, and with a
species that has never got further than its small satelite at 300 000 Km.

I just said:

Scientists shouldn't be afraid of saying

I don't know

when that is the case: they haven't any observational data to establish
any theories about the subject matter.

That would stop all kinds of futile speculations without any data.