Although the wrong theories contributed to scientific evolution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the role of incorrect theories in the advancement of scientific knowledge, emphasizing that every significant scientific breakthrough has roots in ideas that were not fully confirmed. It argues that science thrives on exploring untested concepts, contrasting this with engineering, which prioritizes confirmed functionality. Historical examples, such as the origins of astronomy from astrology and chemistry from alchemy, illustrate how flawed theories have paved the way for progress. The conversation suggests that rather than seeking isolated instances of wrong theories, one should analyze the broader context of scientific evolution. Ultimately, the interplay of uncertainty and creativity is essential for scientific advancement.
pomo
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Dear friends,

I am writting a simple essay about the mechanisms of scientific evolutions, where I would like to point out the main driving forces that induce scientific progress.

I would like to give simple examples from history of science (e.g Physics, Astrophysics, Mathematics, etc.) where scientific results though not fully confirmed by the subsequent research, they however maintained some validity or opened new avenues for the improvement of scientific theory.

I would appreciate your help!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Nice topic. My initial comment would be you won't have to look far to find examples of what you are talking about-- it applies to the entire history of scientific discovery! Every single step in the progress of science is just what you are talking about, there are no exceptions, unless you count the things we think we "know" today-- in defiance of the entire history of our own art. Science only ever "fully confirms" one thing-- the usefulness and value of its theories. A theory can be confirmed to be useful, that is the highest aspiration we can hope to achieve in science. Any more is hubris, and we should know better by now.

In other words, what I'm saying is, instead of seeking special examples of wrong theories that helped the advancement of science, why not just look at all the major stages of scientific growth, every "big" theory that came along bar none, and then go back and analyze why we should not regard that theory as "fully confirmed" as truth. Engineering is about what is confirmed-- science is about what is not confirmed.
 
In engineering, the functionality of end products is of vital importance. This tends to make engineers highly pragmatic and highly critical of untested ideas. If you engineer products that fail to meet expectations, the product does not sell, the company does not make money, and engineers get fired. In science, you take a lot less heat for creative ideas that do not pan out. The science of astronomy owes its existence to astrology - a cornucopia of superstitious nonsense. Chemistry originated from alchemy - another bad idea. Medical science was founded by shamans and witch doctors - who greatly contributed to our knowledge of what is useless and even kills people. Historically, flailing in the dark based on delusional ideas has immensely benefited scientific advance, but, sucks for engineers.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Back
Top