Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around physical theories that were once accepted as valid descriptions of reality but were later dismissed. Participants explore various historical theories across different domains, including astronomy, thermodynamics, and atomic models, examining their initial successes and subsequent failures.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Historical
Main Points Raised
- One participant cites the geocentric epicycle theory of Ptolemy as an example of a theory that worked to a degree but was ultimately incorrect due to the acceptance of heliocentrism.
- Another participant mentions the caloric theory as a theory that was once accepted but is now considered wrong.
- Several participants list additional theories, including the luminiferous ether and Newtonian mechanics, as examples of theories that were once thought to be correct.
- There is a discussion about the appropriateness of including Newtonian mechanics in this context, with some arguing that it still works well in many practical applications, while others point out its limitations outside certain domains.
- One participant defends the caloric theory by referencing Sadi Carnot's development of the Carnot cycle, suggesting that it had some utility despite its eventual dismissal.
- The phlogiston theory is also mentioned as a historical example of a failed scientific theory.
- Hoyle's "continuous creation" or quasi-steady-state model of the Universe is brought up as another theory that has been challenged.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a variety of views on which theories should be included in the discussion. There is no consensus on the validity of certain theories, such as Newtonian mechanics, with some defending its relevance while others challenge its inclusion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the categorization and assessment of these theories.
Contextual Notes
Some participants express uncertainty about the criteria for determining which theories qualify as having "worked" and whether hindsight affects the evaluation of these theories. The discussion highlights the complexity of assessing historical scientific theories based on their context and subsequent developments.