Although the wrong theories contributed to scientific evolution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mechanisms of scientific evolution, specifically focusing on how incorrect theories have contributed to scientific progress across various fields such as physics, astrophysics, and mathematics. Participants explore historical examples and the implications of these theories on the development of scientific thought.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the entire history of scientific discovery exemplifies the idea that wrong theories can drive progress, arguing that science is about the exploration of unconfirmed ideas rather than seeking absolute truths.
  • Another participant emphasizes the pragmatic nature of engineering, contrasting it with science, and notes that many scientific fields originated from flawed ideas, such as astrology leading to astronomy and alchemy to chemistry.
  • A later reply mentions quantum mechanics as being rooted in earlier theories, specifically referencing the Bohr theory of orbiting electrons, which did not account for electromagnetic radiation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of incorrect theories in scientific advancement. While some argue that all scientific progress is inherently linked to unconfirmed theories, others highlight the practical implications of these theories in engineering and their historical contexts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent and nature of the contributions of wrong theories to scientific evolution.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the limitations of defining what constitutes "confirmation" in science versus engineering, as well as the historical context of various scientific fields. There are unresolved assumptions about the validity and impact of specific theories mentioned.

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.
 

Similar threads

Testing Scientific Theories Against Data
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
High School Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
Physics Unable to settle on a specialisation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School A Meritable Veritable Time Paradox?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD application)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Undergrad What Are the Empirical Challenges Facing Quantum Gravity Theories?
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
Graduate Recent research relevant to quasar evolution
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Methodology / Philosophy of Science
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Photon-Foil FTL Drive theory
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Progress In Calculating The HLbL Contribution To Muon g-2
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K