'But Scientists Have Been Wrong Before!'

[SirNitram]

Alright, I have to ask: How much of a degree of error should we expect with what we know now? We'd be fools to claim we've got it perfect now, so I'm assuming there's at least a ballpark guess about what will and won't change in theories. It's a question mostly relating to my position as a would-be sci-fi writer, and what pursuits might yield the most interesting results.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Alright, I have to ask: How much of a degree of error should we expect with what we know now? We'd be fools to claim we've got it perfect now, so I'm assuming there's at least a ballpark guess about what will and won't change in theories. It's a question mostly relating to my position as a would-be sci-fi writer, and what pursuits might yield the most interesting results.

Currently, we can say, with fairly good certainty, that the following things are true:

A) The fastest anything travels at is the speed of light. This *Glares at the Weberites* will likely include gravity, as all the other forces seem to propagate at the speed of light.

B) The universe seems to be open and shall expand beyond the point that protons undergo radioactive decay.

C) Everything seems to have started with a big bang.

What we don't really know about are the following:

A) The exact structure of the universe. There are still a number of competing theories regarding strings, microdimensions, and hyperdimensions that seem to explain what's going on in the universe.

B) What, exactly, comprises all the dark energy or "quintessence" in the universe. For that matter, most dark matter is still unaccounted for.

C) The precise nature of black holes is something that's still up for speculation. Though we do think that they'd make great space-time dynamos, and seem to evaporate over time.

D) We still have to back-fill the process how we got from amino acids, simple proteins and DNA bases to cells.

E) The specific nature of the big bang is still up for speculation. For example, why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe, and why did everything expand with the irregularity needed for galaxies to form?

F) The question of the exact nature of the multiverse (meaning alternative realities) is still up for grabs.

This is, by no means, a comprehensive list.

[Admiral Valdemar]

They always pull this one with me, "But how can you prove God doesn't exist when scientists have been wrong and don't know everything?"

Ugh!

[Rye]

They always pull this one with me, "But how can you prove God doesn't exist when scientists have been wrong and don't know everything?"

Ugh!

Erm...you read the actual questions at the start of this thread?

[NecronLord]

Religion has always been wrong until proven otherwise. Scientists are often correct.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

They always pull this one with me, "But how can you prove God doesn't exist when scientists have been wrong and don't know everything?"

Ugh!

<mod>
Completely off-topic.
</mod>

D) Incidentally we can also say, with very high confidence, that there is no God running things in the commonly thought-of sense.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I thought my post was mildly on topic. *shrug*

Still, point remains, these people still use that argument.

[SirNitram]

I thought my post was mildly on topic. *shrug*

Still, point remains, these people still use that argument.

Uh, dude, it's totally off-topic. The point of the thread is what could be disproven in the future. Please read the first post before you go insane.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I thought my post was mildly on topic. *shrug*

Still, point remains, these people still use that argument.

Uh, dude, it's totally off-topic. The point of the thread is what could be disproven in the future. Please read the first post before you go insane.

My apologies, I'm already insane anyway.

*waddles off*

[Alyeska]

I thought my post was mildly on topic. *shrug*

Still, point remains, these people still use that argument.

Uh, dude, it's totally off-topic. The point of the thread is what could be disproven in the future. Please read the first post before you go insane.

It looks on topic to me. A typical creationist ploy is to point out science has been wrong.

[Rye]

It looks on topic to me. A typical creationist ploy is to point out science has been wrong.

yes...but still the point remains this thread has nothing to do with creationism.

[AdmiralKanos]

The mentality of the "scientists know nothing" attitude which is heard from creationists, mysticists, and quacks of all kinds stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

People think in terms of black and white; something is either correct or incorrect. If they are not absolutely sure that it is correct, they conclude that it could very well be total bullshit, and that's their approach to science. Whenever it says something they don't want to hear, they simply say "well, it's not guaranteed correct so it could be total bullshit". And since nothing is really guaranteed true, this leads to solypsism.

But on a more fundamental level, it's a problem of psychological approach. If we simply replace "correct vs incorrect" with "degrees of accuracy", the scientific approach makes perfect sense and the holes in this reasoning become obvious.

Think of the analogy of a sculpture. The sculptor starts with an ugly lump of clay or chunk of rock etc., and has an object (let's say it's an apple) that he wants to model. When he starts, the lump bears no resemblance to the apple. As he works, and works, and works some more, the lump begins to resemble the apple much more closely. In theory, with enough technology and effort, he might be able to produce a model of the apple which is visually indistinguishable from the original. At the very least, he can certainly make it a very good replica.

And that's the same thing science does; it started with nothing, and slowly worked its way toward a better model. The naysayers claim that it's not guaranteed true (this is like a critic saying to the sculptor that it still doesn't look EXACTLY like the apple), but it's certainly very close, much closer than it was before. And if you trot out some wild alternative theory (analogous to pulling out another lump of clay) and claim that it has just as much claim on truth as the highly refined model because neither is perfect, you are engaging in a black/white fallacy.

So, it's not a matter of how much science "knows". It's a matter of how accurate the model is, and right now it's pretty damned accurate. Not perfect, but accurate enough for us to predict things as small as the movement of electrons and as large as the birth of stars with good accuracy.

[Queeb Salaron]

I think that there will be some great Newtonian physics law that will be disproven sometime in the future, or at least a law that will be revised to the point where it only slightly resembles Newton's theories.

::Smiles:: Personally, I like it when scientific theories are disproven. Especially in the field of medicine. The Kenneth Bianchi trial all but disproved the effectiveness of hypnotherapy. When I watched the reactions of the guys who initially tested him, they were shocked and appalled that their precious theories had been totally uprooted. It was great.

[Darth Wong]

I think that there will be some great Newtonian physics law that will be disproven sometime in the future, or at least a law that will be revised to the point where it only slightly resembles Newton's theories.

That would be quite a shock, since its predictions would have to closely resemble Newton's theories in the regimes for which they are applicable today, otherwise it would be inconsistent with the entire body of observed kinematic evidence.

::Smiles:: Personally, I like it when scientific theories are disproven. Especially in the field of medicine. The Kenneth Bianchi trial all but disproved the effectiveness of hypnotherapy. When I watched the reactions of the guys who initially tested him, they were shocked and appalled that their precious theories had been totally uprooted. It was great.

Medical science has not progressed to anywhere near the level of accuracy that physics has. It is more like reverse-engineering.

[Queeb Salaron]

That would be quite a shock, since its predictions would have to closely resemble Newton's theories in the regimes for which they are applicable today, otherwise it would be inconsistent with the entire body of observed kinematic evidence.

Yes, but what if (and this is a HUGE what-if) we attributed certain forces as being applied by one thing, when in fact they were applied by something different? Say, for example, that centripetal acceleration was not caused by the rotation of an object, but rather by some other force that we "missed" or discarded as negligible? It's just an example, of course.

Medical science has not progressed to anywhere near the level of accuracy that physics has. It is more like reverse-engineering.

Oh, I know. If medical science were anywhere near as well-developed as physics, we'd have a universal cure for all viral-based infections. [/Speculation]

And physics has a drastically lower frequency of theory disproof, which is why I like keeping an eye on medical developments more than I like watching developments in the world of physics.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Medical science and biology in general is very much like reverse engineering since we're essentially writing up the manuals on how organisms that have had millions of years to perfect themselves, work.

It's like giving an engineer the most complicated machine known to man and saying "Now, tell us how it all fits together and works."

[UltraViolence83]

The only real very accurate scientific theory I want to see smashed is the "Nothing beyond speed of light" rule. But I'm sure every self-respecting sci-fi fan will agree with me on that.

Someday...perhaps...

[Queeb Salaron]

Medical science and biology in general is very much like reverse engineering since we're essentially writing up the manuals on how organisms that have had millions of years to perfect themselves, work.

It's like giving an engineer the most complicated machine known to man and saying "Now, tell us how it all fits together and works."

"And oh by the way, wheile you're figuring it out, we're gonna make it more and more complex."

[UltraViolence83]

Medical science and biology in general is very much like reverse engineering since we're essentially writing up the manuals on how organisms that have had millions of years to perfect themselves, work.

It's like giving an engineer the most complicated machine known to man and saying "Now, tell us how it all fits together and works."

"And oh by the way, wheile you're figuring it out, we're gonna make it more and more complex."

"Oh, and if you can, try to make it bigger and better."

[Admiral Valdemar]

"Every man knows that bigger is always better!"
-Lt. Britain, Dominion Tank Police

[AdmiralKanos]

That would be quite a shock, since its predictions would have to closely resemble Newton's theories in the regimes for which they are applicable today, otherwise it would be inconsistent with the entire body of observed kinematic evidence.

Yes, but what if (and this is a HUGE what-if) we attributed certain forces as being applied by one thing, when in fact they were applied by something different? Say, for example, that centripetal acceleration was not caused by the rotation of an object, but rather by some other force that we "missed" or discarded as negligible? It's just an example, of course.

Um ... you DO realize that centripetal acceleration is a GEOMETRIC concept, right? It is impossible to move in a straight line around a circle; I suggest you think harder about what you're saying.

Oh, I know. If medical science were anywhere near as well-developed as physics, we'd have a universal cure for all viral-based infections. [/Speculation]

And physics has a drastically lower frequency of theory disproof, which is why I like keeping an eye on medical developments more than I like watching developments in the world of physics.

Medicine is a messy business, to be sure.

[SPOOFE]

The thing about science is that it is a process, not an instruction manual. "Science" doesn't say anything... it doesn't mention anything about evolution or astrophysics or biology or anything. It is simply a set of rules used to observe phenomena and come up with explanations. To say that "science has been wrong before" betrays a gross ignorance... since one of the rules of the scientific method is to incorporate all observations for the final theory. If a new observation comes along that disproves a previous theory, this new observation is simply added in and a new theory made.

Ergo, science has yet to be wrong. It's just that those who use the scientific method have had instances where they didn't have all the evidence.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Newtonian laws are pretty much here to stay. While they don't work always (GPS would be off without relativity) does a rocket work? Does a rocket randomly start and stop moving? Does an apple fall?

[Trytostaydead]

EVERYTHING can change. Science CONSTANTLY changes as we give birth to a genius and develop new insights and observational techniques.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Of course, a good quick retort is "God has been wrong before as well", and cite contradictory material from the Bible.