What could disprove Germ Theory?

[Aranfan]

As we know, in science things are not "proven". Theories must be falsifiable. A bunny in the Precambrian would disprove Evolution, what would disprove Germ Theory?

I ask this only to increase my knowledge.

[Feil]

Take a prediction of Germ Theory. If it plays out differently than predicted, that's evidence against.

For example: Put fifty mice in sealed cages and inject half of them with some disease. If the injected half shows lower or equal incidence of the disease than the uninjected half, that would be pretty powerful evidence against Germ Theory.

[Darth Wong]

As we know, in science things are not "proven". Theories must be falsifiable. A bunny in the Precambrian would disprove Evolution, what would disprove Germ Theory?

I ask this only to increase my knowledge.

When so many of a theory's predictions have been shown to be highly accurate, it can never be "disproven" in the sense that it is shown to be completely wrong. That simply cannot be, since those predictions are still accurate to all of that already-collected data. It can only be superseded by an improved theory, in much the same way that Newtonian physics was superseded by relativistic physics. It was not "disproven" in the sense that it was shown to be completely wrong; in fact, Newtonian physics is far more useful than relativistic physics in most engineering activities, and is still far more widely used as a result.

Similarly, even if you could find something that falls outside the predictions of a well-tested theory like evolution or germ theory, this would not "disprove" the theory in the sense that it is now shown to be completely wrong; it would only show that we need additions to the theory or an improved theory to explain it. And this improved theory would have to produce very similar predictions most of the time, much like relativistic physics mirrors Newtonian physics under most conditions.

[OsirisLord]

Nothing. Because it's a theory. If you find a case that doesn't fit the predictions made by germ theory, scientists would probably put the theory under consideration, but chances are its not going to call into question all the thousands of cases that verifiably fit the model, unless it's this huge monstrous discrepancy.

[Rye]

Germ theory would presumably be falsified if it turned out that infections had nothing to do with micro-organisms but was rather a result of feng shui or magic crystals or something, and up till now we'd just had a lot of coincidences with viruses and bacteria. And evolution wouldn't be falsified with a bunny in the precambrian, it would just mean that there were bunnies back then, while everything else falls into line. You could propose that bunny was an alien species or a time traveller, or a remnant from a whole different line. The key to disproving decent theories is the existence of superior, incompatible explanations.

[Zixinus]

Knee-jerk answer: something pretty damn drastic, as we can see germs (with microscopes, granted) and there seems to be a pretty straightforward evidence for it.

More reasoned answer: some kind of force that could measured and clearly shows infection in environments where germs could not survive and could be shown to survive.

[B5B7]

No one-off result would endanger the germ theory. If someone obtained a lab result that was incompatible, then the first step would be to put that lab result to stringent examination so as to find what mistake occurred in that experiment. If could not find anything, then would have independent labs in other geographical locations run the experiment under strict protocols to see if also get same results.

If get same results, then would attempt to create a hypothesis that incorporates that result into germ theory. If it can't be incorporated, only then would one actually re-examine germ theory One would create further experiments to test germ theory.

But realistically, that germ theory is incorrect is as likely as the moon actually being made of cheese. It is affirmed by billions of instances, by evolution theory, etc.

[defanatic]

Germ theory would presumably be falsified if it turned out that infections had nothing to do with micro-organisms but was rather a result of feng shui or magic crystals or something, and up till now we'd just had a lot of coincidences with viruses and bacteria. And evolution wouldn't be falsified with a bunny in the precambrian, it would just mean that there were bunnies back then, while everything else falls into line. You could propose that bunny was an alien species or a time traveller, or a remnant from a whole different line. The key to disproving decent theories is the existence of superior, incompatible explanations.

If we found that 20% of people who were sick from 'germ-caused' illnesses didn't have germs or something like that?

Maybe then we'd consider that what we call germs (which we can see with good enough equipment) are actually a byproduct of a hitherto unknown debilitating process.

[Stuart]

If we found that 20% of people who were sick from 'germ-caused' illnesses didn't have germs or something like that?.

This actually happened. Back during the Great Influenza, there was a lot of dispute over what was actually killing people - and whether it was an influenza at all. One of the problems was there were two theories of what caused an influenza, one of which was a bacterial infection, the other of which was a virus. In 1919, based on studies of victims of influenzas in hospital, the bacteria theory was preferred because every influenza patient studied had the bacteria in his or her lungs. QED.

Or not.

Because in the Great Influenza, people were dying all over the place and a goodly proportion of them didn't have that bacteria present. So, this led to two possibilities, one was that the disease wasn't an influenza, the other was that the disease was an influenza but the bacteria didn't cause it. The case was complicated by the fact that the presentation of the Great Influenza was quite different from the normal. Problem took a lot of sorting out and quite a few people died as a result.

Cutting a long story short, it was eventually discovered that the disease was an influenza (an avian influenza but that's another story) but bacteria didn't cause it - the disease was caused by a virus. That didn't get finally proven until the mid-1930s. The unusual presentation was due to a thing called a cytokine storm which is basically a massive over-reaction of the immune system.

So, how did bacteria get into the story? Well, these were the days when people went to hospital only when they were really sick. A normal influenza attack (ie a very bad cold) they fought off at home. Now, influenza gets serious when it causes the victims to develop pneumonia which was a really serious killer back then (pneumonia was pretty much bye-bye). So, the only influenza victims who went to hospital were the ones who were developing pneumonia - and the bacteria found were associated with the pneumonia, not influenza. With the Great Influenza, the cytokine storms were killing people before they got infected with teh pneumonia bacteria. Simple really.

So, if we found a case of a disease where 20 percent of the victims didn't have the causitive agent, we'd look for a different one. If we thought it was a bacteria, we'd look at viruses, if they didn't pan out, we'd try for prions. If that didn't pan out, we'd look for something else. Remember also that not all 'diseases' are the result of germ theory, some are caused by bad habits, some are caused by really nasty parasites, some are caused by toxins. Plenty of choices.

[Kanastrous]

Given that it is now possible to observe pathogens infecting and destroying cells, is Germ Theory *really* just a theory, any more?

Doesn't first-hand observation of the mechanisms at work elevate a concept out of the 'theory' category?

Sure, there's room for expanded and revised theories at the level of detail-mechanisms, but isn't the basic pathogens cause disease model proven beyond the theoretical, by this point?

[General Zod]

Given that it is now possible to observe pathogens infecting and destroying cells, is Germ Theory *really* just a theory, any more?

Doesn't first-hand observation of the mechanisms at work elevate a concept out of the 'theory' category?

Sure, there's room for expanded and revised theories at the level of detail-mechanisms, but isn't the basic pathogens cause disease model proven beyond the theoretical, by this point?

Do yourself a favor. Replace the word "theory" with "explanation" in your post. Calling it "just" a theory is absurd and somewhat of an abuse of the term when applied in a scientific context.

[The Vortex Empire]

Given that it is now possible to observe pathogens infecting and destroying cells, is Germ Theory *really* just a theory, any more?

Doesn't first-hand observation of the mechanisms at work elevate a concept out of the 'theory' category?

Sure, there's room for expanded and revised theories at the level of detail-mechanisms, but isn't the basic pathogens cause disease model proven beyond the theoretical, by this point?

The scientific term theory is the highest status a hypothesis can achieve. A theory is only a theory when there is overwhelming evidence for it and it is mostly accepted in the scientific community. Gravity and electricity are theories in the same way germ theory is.

It's not the same as the layman's term theory, which is really a hypothesis.

[Kanastrous]

Gotcha.

[Edi]

One thing to keep in mind from the late 19th and early 20th century history of medicine is that compared to today's instruments the ones used at that time were damned inefficient. Microscopes accurate enough to see things on levels considered routine now didn't even exist necessarily. Several diseases that were well known only had their pathogens identified after more efficient microscopes were developed.

Which is another snag in there and can lead to the kind of statistics where "20% of the patients who died of disease X did not have the pathogen in their system". Usually due to wrong identification of the cause or the other things Stuart mentions.

[Surlethe]

The way you disprove an explanation is to find observations that contradict its predictions. As Stuart points out, germ theory (or the idea that germs cause disease) has been disproved several times. But the modern explanatory synthesis (including disease agents besides bacteria and viruses) is so successful that for a layman to come up with a reasonable way to disprove it is nearly impossible: all the new observations that could fall outside of its purview and falsify it are on the cutting edge of research, and to understand them, let alone comment, I'd need an MD and PhD.

In any case, the easiest way to imagine a way germ theory could be wrong is to simply imagine that, for some or most diseases, absolutely no bacteria, viruses, toxins, etc. are present in the body or at the site of infection. It's difficult because that's not the way things are - which is why germ theory is so compelling. In fact, any reasonably successful scientific explanation is equally compelling: Newton's law of gravity is easily falsified (if downward acceleration were proportional to r^3 or r, e.g.), but if it were wrong it would be so blatantly wrong that nobody would have ever proposed it. Similarly, evolution theory would be wrong if lifeforms were geographically distributed with no discernible pattern or if we discovered recognizably human tools in preCambrian rock layers, e.g. But that's just not the way things are, which is why it makes so much sense.

If we take for granted that germ theory is a successful explanation of disease, then the only way to falsify it would be to uncover something at the edges of our knowledge that germ theory could be reasonably expected to predict but does not. The theory of disease that would replace germ theory would have to reduce to germ theory in the limit of everyday occurrences, much as relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the low-mass, low-speed limit, precisely because germ theory is so successful at predicting disease phenomena now.

[Justforfun000]

I think Science should come forward with a statement saying they are dropping the word "theory" from the vernacular as it is distinctly different from a laymen's definition of the word and therefore misleading. I like Zod's example. Switch it to The Explanation of Evolution, or something else along that line. The resultant discussion and updates would go a long way in driving that message home to people constantly using the "just a theory" meme as an attack.

[General Zod]

I think Science should come forward with a statement saying they are dropping the word "theory" from the vernacular as it is distinctly different from a laymen's definition of the word and therefore misleading. I like Zod's example. Switch it to The Explanation of Evolution, or something else along that line. The resultant discussion and updates would go a long way in driving that message home to people constantly using the "just a theory" meme as an attack.

Retards getting the use of a word wrong is no reason to stop using a word. It just means people need more education regarding the matter so they don't get it wrong. Should we stop using the word "manslaughter" because most people think it's interchangeable with "murder" too?

[Kanastrous]

When the retards are getting it wrong in huge numbers and voting, it may be time to retrench with terminology for their consumption that they will understand.

[General Zod]

When the retards are getting it wrong in huge numbers and voting, it may be time to retrench with terminology for their consumption that they will understand.

You're going to need a massive public education campaign to explain why you're using a different word either way. May as well go the simpler route and keep the existing word as it is.

[Justforfun000]

You're going to need a massive public education campaign to explain why you're using a different word either way. May as well go the simpler route and keep the existing word as it is.

But there isn't a huge emotional and religious war against innocuous word definitions like manslaughter and murder. That's the difference. Why not go for the massive public education campaign? Heck, you wouldn't even really need it. One major scientific board releasing a statement would get the story printed in every major newspaper in the world as a brief mention at the very least, and in many cases full articles discussing the issue. Plus it would be constantly reinforced by Universities, high school science teachers, and every other conceivable branch of science-related discipline that could shut the dissenters up by saying "We don't use the word theory anymore because it has been constantly misinterpreted as the laymen's interpretation of the term that simply means an idea more like a hypothetical idea someone just concocted. Evolution is a fact and that's why all doctrines of proven, testable predictions are now called "Explanations" if they merit a definite consensus of evidence"

You should be all for this. You came up with the more accurate term after all.

[General Zod]

But there isn't a huge emotional and religious war against innocuous word definitions like manslaughter and murder. That's the difference. Why not go for the massive public education campaign? Heck, you wouldn't even really need it. One major scientific board releasing a statement would get the story printed in every major newspaper in the world as a brief mention at the very least, and in many cases full articles discussing the issue. Plus it would be constantly reinforced by Universities, high school science teachers, and every other conceivable branch of science-related discipline that could shut the dissenters up by saying "We don't use the word theory anymore because it has been constantly misinterpreted as the laymen's interpretation of the term that simply means an idea more like a hypothetical idea someone just concocted. Evolution is a fact and that's why all doctrines of proven, testable predictions are now called "Explanations" if they merit a definite consensus of evidence"

You should be all for this. You came up with the more accurate term after all.

I use it when making fun of idiots who don't understand what the word actually means. That doesn't mean I favor a change in the term.