I thought of this parallel a couple months ago or so, and am inspired to mention it in this post after encountering Whaddo You Meme?'s response to Genetically Modified Skeptic, which discussed the so-called God of the Gaps argument.
Suppose you are a juror in a court of law, and that you are evaluating a case of a man who has been charged with a crime. The prosecuting attorney presents pieces of evidence that she argues warrants an inference that the defendant is guilty. For now, you're leaning towards convicting him, but you'll wait to see what the defense says. The defendant's attorney then comes up and says the following:
Your Honor, all I saw from the prosecution just then was one big argument from ignorance. All she ever gave was a list of gaps in our current not-guilty-based understanding of the world, and she tried to then conclude that the defendant is guilty. This is nothing more than a classic case of "the defendant of the gaps".
You see, throwing one's hand up and saying "The defendant did it!" is nothing more than a case of laziness. I don't claim to know what the explanation of [whatever evidence was just presented], but at least I'm honest enough to admit that, and to work and try to figure out what the explanation is, instead of dishonestly claiming "the defendant did it!".
"The defendant did it!" is a science-stopper. It seeks to stifle scientific progress as we gradually find the real answers to these questions. Over time, future people will find not-guilty explanations of what the prosecution just presented, and the gaps she will be able to fill with her defendant of the gaps will keep shrinking.Now, how would you react to such a speech? Would you take it to be convincing? Would it change your mind as far as whether or not to convict the defendant?
