^Nor do I. All along I've been treating this merely as a matter of probability, what's the more reasonable interpretation. I have no idea why anyone would treat it as an argument about "proving" something that's literally impossible to prove.
So let me ask the question this way: Why would it be desirable
to believe that Kirk had no prior command? Is it just because of his youth? Riker was offered his first command at 29, and Picard took command of the Stargazer
at 28, though he jumped a couple of steps in rank due to the circumstances. Those are both younger than Kirk was when he took over the Enterprise
. So I don't think the youth argument cuts it, at least not in a Trek-universe context.
So what does that leave as a reason for preferring the idea that he had no prior command? TOS never portrayed him as a novice or inexperienced commander; rather the opposite, I'd say.
So it's a mystery to me. Of course we're not talking about something provable, just a matter of individual preference -- but what's the appeal of the idea?