Plase tell me what you think about my theory on past and present science...?

Question

What I have been thinking about is that scientific theories have usually been proven false. Just over 500 years ago, it had been considered that the world was flat. In ancient Greece, people of polytheistic religions thought that their gods governed the weather and how well their crops did that season. Today, we consider this to be very foolish and would find some one who believed this very odd. Couldn't this be true of science today? The idea of evolution is relatively new. In 500 years, couldn't we totally prove this theory wrong? This could go for any theory.

Pretty much what I'm saying is that humans may not be as smart as we think, because we have nothing else to compare to. We think we're the smartest beings, while there could be a species light years away who are 100x smarter than us. What if every single principle of science that we know was proven wrong in 2,000 years, just as many of the things people thought 2,000 years ago are now considered rediculous?

Answer 1

Oh. The world is not flat as you say.

You can research your theories at http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Globe

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/World

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Evolution

http://www.google.com

Answer 2

No one has seriously thought the world was flat for thousands of years.  The Greeks and Mayans knew it was round, and so did many other cultures that bothered watching eclipses once in a while.  

People still believe in gods.  We haven't gotten over that nonsense yet, but it's never been considered science.

Evolution works, so it won't be proved completely wrong.  Some parts may be in error, but all in all, it's correct - it's been observed, makes testable predictions, and yes, can be falsified.  

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.  I'm assuming you're not advocating ignoring science, since that would involve you going to live in a tree without your cell phone or laptop or internet connection - hey, science might be wrong about that too!

Answer 3

Evolution IS wrong. Anyone who isn't ridiculously dogmatic and prejuidiced already knows that.

Answer 4

By definition, anything in science IS considered falsifiable, that means it can be proven wrong IF there is evidence to support such a demonstration. Which does not mean that all that we now know is false.

The examples of you give of things proven wrong before have one thing in common: they were not the conclusion and projection of scientific derivation, they were dogmatic affirmations that had no factual basis.

A scientific system, like evolution for instance, allows to make predictions and deductions. As long as the predictions and conclusions are considered right and proper, and check out against measurable facts, then it will be considered true. When we find something that does not jibe, then the theory will be reopened, corrected or replaced. But the key word here is "when". It has not happened yet for presently accepted theories, that is precisely why they are presently accepted.

Answer 5

The thought on science is to use the most feasible theory in light of current knowledge. Then, if your conception is proven false, change the theorem.

Light used to travel in straight lines, until they found out it doesn't. Now there is a whole field of quantum mechanics, which explains why light does NOT travel in straight lines.

Yes, in 500 years, or less, evolution will be disproven, because it has holes in it big enough to drive a big truck through- sideways.

You are a true scientific thinker. Never accept anything as set in concrete.

Answer 6

You are right that all scientific ideas have been shown to fall short of truth.  The important thing to realize is that science is not the pursuit of truth, per se.  That is, no matter how far science progresses, an honest scientist will never claim to have found undeniable proof of any given idea.  The ultimate test of a scientific idea is experiment, and there is no such thing as an experiment or measurement without uncertainty or error.

In fact, I wouldn't call past scientific theories "wrong."  I would say they have been shown to be limited in how much of the universe they describe.  For example, 2500 years ago (not 500 years ago), the world was thought to be flat because it looked that way.  However, the ancient Greeks discovered that a flat Earth was not supported by observations of ships disappearing over the horizon and the behavior of shadows.  Eratosthenes was able to measure the size of the Earth very precisely in 240BC using shadows at different latitudes.

However, when an architect designs a two-story house, he does not take into account the spherical shape of the Earth.  He assumes that the house will be built on flat ground.  So, the "flat earth theory" is still useful (but not very).

A better example: Isaac Newton's mechanics has been shown by experiment to be accurate only for weak gravitational fields and speeds much less than that of light.  Einstein's Theory of Relativity much more accurately predicts the behavior of the universe than Newton's theories.  However, Newton's theories are accurate enough to put astronauts on the moon and to send probes out beyond Pluto.  Newton's theories aren't wrong, but more limited than Einstein's.

Every theory has its limits as to what it can explain.  The Standard Model of Particle Physics describes every particle interaction we know about to a fantastic accuracy, but does not have a description of dark matter or dark energy.  The Big Bang Theory predicts with great accuracy the evolution of our universe since microseconds after it began, but it cannot describe the actual beginning of the universe or what came before--if anything.  Evolution is our best explanation of how a small number of living organisms billions of years ago produced all the wondrous plants and animals on Earth, including us.  And yet, it does not explain how life began.

While these are substantial open questions, don't mistake them for reasons to throw these theories out.  These are incredibly useful models of the universe that agree with an incredibly broad range of experiments and observations to an incredibly high accuracy.

Scientists do realize that we "may not be as smart as we think."  That's why they constantly check their theories against experiment and scrutinize and duplicate each other's experiments.  The gaps in our knowledge that I listed above are welcomed by scientists because it means that there is more to discover.  Scientists celebrate previous "ridiculous" theories because it is a measure of how far we've come, and a humbling reminder of how far we have to go.

Answer 7

I agree with much of what you say.

You should check out Nicholas Maxwell.  He has a lot to say about this stuff.

Answer 8

As Bruce J came close to saying, it is not only that we have different theories today.  The important thing is that today we have the scientific method, employing logic and the results of much better observations.

Look for fewer upheavals in science, and more "refinements" (additions to theories to explain further observations that don't contradict the past).

Answer 9

Your 'theory' is the basis for modern scientific techniques.  It's the very reason that the Scientific Method was developed.  

I agree with you that we are barely scratching the surface of our knowledge of the universe, but I disagree with you that it could go for 'any theory'.

Mathematics, for example, is pretty cut and dry.  Many of our scientific ideas are rock solid.  However, there is always room for questions....

Answer 10

Sure the idea of evolution is new, but it's well founded. Of course, that can be said of any idea in the past, until it was proven differently.

When the aliens finally arrive to laugh at us I just hope they are able to program my digital watch for me - that's something I doubt I will ever figure out - no matter how much I evolve.

Answer 11

wow ur deep (girls like that!!) but u do have a point and i agree that we probably arent as smart as we think

Answer 12

you're a little wrong in the broad statement that most scientific theories have been proven false, and it sours the rest of your question.

You're right in the statement of human beings in general not being as smart as they like to think, but doubting evolution makes me do a facepalm like captain picard getting rickrolled by his replicator when all he wants is a nice croissant.

Answer 13

Got a lot of hits.  Good job trolling.