the value of science?

[escapade]

'science' - as we know it - is constantly changing with the addition of new discoveries. old theories that were once believed to be accurate are becoming obsolete and regarded as quite silly, actually.

 

the world according to science was once flat, modern science has disproved this theory. could it be that with the progression of time our modern scientific beliefs could meet the same fate? this is the pattern that is starting to emerge: what is thought to be modern and accurate scientifically theories are disproved later on in time when a new discovery is made that makes the old theory look ridiculous and unthinkably stupid. in my observation, scientific theories come and go, theories devised in the 1900s are now regarded as out of date.

 

with that said, what is the value of science? a hundred years from now, will today's theories meet the same fate?

 

suck on that.

[YT2095]

theories devised in the 1900s are now regarded as out of date.

 

no, SOME are "out of date" (if such a term can be used).

 

as for the end of your post, Lose the attitude or lose your ability to post here again.

[npts2020]

Well, one value of science is that we now know the world is not flat. I expect this to be a drive by trolling, but i will ask anyway, which theories from the 1900's were you referring to? I can think of quite a few that are just as valid now as they were then, besides the idea of the world not being flat.

[D H]

the world according to science was once flat

That is flat-out wrong. Even the ancients knew the world was round and made some fairly accurate assessments of its size. Science per se started in the 1600s or so, or about 1800 a couple thousand years after Eratosthenes. What passed for science before the scientific revolution is not really science in the sense of using the scientific method. There aren't all that many scientific theories that have been utterly dismissed.

 

Newtonian mechanics -- most engineering is applied Newtonian mechanics. Darwin's theory of evolution didn't have a causal mechanism and relied too much on gradualism. Modern synthesis, which predates the discovery of DNA, is a meld of Darwin's theories and genetics. Evolutionary theories have progressed considerably since then. That said, schools still teach discuss Darwin's work.

 

A couple of examples of theories that have been utterly falsified are the caloric theory of heat and the theory of a luminiferous aether. These utterly falsified ("never right") theories are exceptions.

[Ophiolite]

I would agree that theories, in detail, can readily become outdated. The generality tends to remain. Of course, the alternative is that the detail remains and the generality changes. The classsic example of this would be the introduction of the plate tectonics paradigm. All the observations are extant, but the explanations is wholly different. Go to a stratigraphy/sturctural geology/sedimentology textbook of the 1960s and you will find many pages dealing with geosynclines. Go to a similar batch today and the term likely won't even be mentioned.

[iNow]

Value in this sense is a subjective term, hence quite meaningless for forming any conclusions.

 

Either way, the answer to your question is 42.

[SkepticLance]

My other favourite (after the revolution caused by the theory of plate tectonics) for a scientific idea that was plain wrong, is the cause of ulcers. Once thought to be due to stress. Now known to be an infection by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori.

 

However, even though science continually polishes and refines its ideas with minor changes, to totally overturn an idea is rare. Science is like a building. Lay the foundations and then build on it. You may have to reshape the odd brick, but the building stands and grows.

 

The value of science is in this growth. Science in 100 years will have wonderful new ideas and discoveries, but it will be built upon the foundations that we know to be 'correct' (ie superior models) today.

 

And of course we have the purely practical value. From scientific knowledge comes technology and an increase in the standard of living and quality of life for all humanity.

[Phi for All]

what is the value of science?

It is not intractable. Science has the capacity to recognize a better explanation, unlike beliefs which are often sacred and too fragile to withstand scrutiny.

 

a hundred years from now, will today's theories meet the same fate?

Certainly not all of them, but perhaps some, and that's a very good thing.

 

suck on that.

Mmmmm, the theory of Altoids.

[Royston]

suck on that.

 

I don't wish to suck on your fallacy, young man...good day to you.

[YT2095]

shouldn`t "fallacy" be spelled with a "ph" ?

[npts2020]

shouldn`t "fallacy" be spelled with a "ph" ?

 

Almost certainly in this case.

[Royston]

Almost certainly in this case.

 

What do you call a man with no shins ?

 

Tony

 

(hahahahaha)

 

What do you call a man with no shins ?

 

Toeknee

 

(tumble weed drifts past)

 

I was assuming that people would realise why I used the word 'fallacy' in the same sentence as the word 'suck.' However, I also assumed that YT was purposely urinating on my joke, so I didn't go through this whole painful process of explaining the original joke. It isn't the first time it's happened on here, and I'm sure (especially now) that it won't be the last.

 

On topic, the OP's reasoning is flawed, historically and logically for the reasons already pointed out.

[bob000555]

Not to indulge a troll but…

 

Real science is the process of replacing out of date theories; not the act of clinging to them. With out real science we would still think some great omnipotent juju created us out of dust.

 

That science is ever changing is its great strength, no (respectable) scientist will claim to always be right an his quest for knowledge could change out lives. On a side note this is why I tend to hate the standard reaction when someone posts a theory in the speculations forum…that is what it’s for after all.

[D H]

On a side note this is why I tend to hate the standard reaction when someone posts a theory in the speculations forum…that is what it’s for after all.

You have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science. On the extremely rare occasion where someone posts a theory in the speculations forum, the poster is informed that the post is a known result and the post is moved to the appropriate science forum.

 

Most people who post stuff in the speculations forum post absolute garbage. Occasionally someone will post a WAG - a wild assed guess. Every once in a while someone will post a real speculation, and sometimes people post what could actually be called a hypothesis. Scientific theories are not wild assed guesses. They are backed up with *lots* of evidence, are preferably supported by logic, and they most certainly have been vetted by the peer review process. Wild-assed guesses, conjectures, and hypotheses are not scientific theories. It takes a lot of work by the proponent to move a concept from "hypothesis" to "theory".

 

The speculations forum exists for a couple of reasons (at least). Some fora aggressively delete all posts that propound non-standard concepts. Other fora go to the other extreme and embrace non-standard concepts. ScienceForums has taken a middle-of-the-road approach. We don't delete conjectural posts because that is just too mean-spirited. We don't out-and-out embrace them, either; that is just stupid. There is a world of difference between being open-minded and playing the patsy.

 

Another reason is that, just perhaps, someone will post something of value. Skeptic Lance in his post talked briefly about plate tectonics. This concept has its roots in Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift. Geologists ignored this idea for half a century or so in part because Wegener was not a geologist. Maybe, just maybe, some outsider will post an idea in our speculations forum that is worthwhile. ScienceForums will have made an incredible contribution to the body of science if ScienceForums helps this worthwhile idea take root a bit faster than the half a century it took for continental drift to take hold. That's all speculation, of course, because to date no useful new idea has been proposed in the SF speculations forum.

[swansont]

Another reason is that, just perhaps, someone will post something of value. Skeptic Lance in his post talked briefly about plate tectonics. This concept has its roots in Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift. Geologists ignored this idea for half a century or so in part because Wegener was not a geologist.

 

And one should also note that Wegener did not have nearly as much evidence as is available today, and he did not have a working mechanism. The development of the idea of plate tectonics is what allowed continental drift to be accepted. (One should also note that it wasn't a case of Wegener vs everyone else)

 

In many ways, this is a good example of science. It is not enough to have an explanation for something — that's not a theory. You have to have a complete enough model that other ways of explaining phenomena don't work, you have to have to have evidence to back you up, and you need to make predictions. You need to be able to test it, in a verifiable way, to see if it's wrong. You need rigor.

 

Wegener's story also has the cautionary tale that it sometimes takes a while for the process to unfold.

[YT2095]

just a throw-away thought, but in ref to the OPs general stance on Science, wouldn`t science be pretty lame if it DIDN`T update and Expand upon/Improve itself as technology/instrumentation and indeed Ideas! became available?

you word it as if it`s a Bad thing!???

[gcol]

with that said, what is the value of science? a hundred years from now, will today's theories meet the same fate?

 

That question could have been asked every year since man first paused while butchering an animal and thought "hey, I wonder how that works? Then came up with an idea that satisfied the moment, then that later begged another question, and so on.

 

Its true value may be in nothing more or less than the exercising of the imagination. Or perhaps science is beyond value, it just is.

Edited December 6, 2008 by swansont
fix quote tag

[bob000555]

In all honesty had someone posted on the speculations forum “It appears that the continents used to fit together and then drifted apart, their movement caused mountains and valleys etc” do you thing anyone on this forum would have done anything but laugh and whine? Granted most of what is on that sub forum is pure crap but when something makes some sense we don’t have to be quite as harsh as we are. The sciences are already having enough trouble attracting interest without us bashing everyone when they start to think about it and are ,*gasp*, wrong.

 

We should thank the flying spaghetti monster that more people don’t decide to vet their thoughts here, we would have no more garage tinkerers, no more basement philosophers. We shouldn’t espouse the virtues of the scientific method and then crush people who’s ideas are in it’s first stages.

 

Also D H see definitions 2-7 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

[swansont]

In all honesty had someone posted on the speculations forum “It appears that the continents used to fit together and then drifted apart, their movement caused mountains and valleys etc” do you thing anyone on this forum would have done anything but laugh and whine? Granted most of what is on that sub forum is pure crap but when something makes some sense we don’t have to be quite as harsh as we are. The sciences are already having enough trouble attracting interest without us bashing everyone when they start to think about it and are ,*gasp*, wrong.

 

"What's the mechanism?" was a valid objection to Wegener's hypothesis. Asking the harsh questions and seeing what survives is one of the ways of science.

 

 

Also D H see definitions 2-7 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

 

Within science, those definitions don't apply. There are many examples of lay definitions not matching up with (or even contradicting) the science definitions. (e.g. "coincidence")

[iNow]

Try here, bob:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

 

 

From that link:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

[bob000555]

Actual scientific discourse is quite a different thing from the disenfranchisement and lay-bashing that goes on on the speculations forum. I try to ask valid questions and tell people when they are obviously wrong but most people do it in a mean spirited way almost like getting on a forum and bashing people is their only form of entertainment.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

Good quote.

Science does include changes to scientific ideas, but such changes are mostly in mere nitty gritty detail. Changes to the basic ideas are rare. We can predict with a high degree of probability of being right, that science in 100 years will be built on our current understanding, which shall remain mostly unchanged. However, those who are alive then will share a wonderful expansion of the details of our current understanding. The idea of biological evolution, for example, will be unchanged, but our understanding of its detailed workings will be understood in much greater detail.

[ydoaPs]

with that said, what is the value of science?

 

Your computer? The internet? Electricity? Running water in your house? Heating and air conditioning? Refrigeration? Your house? Nah, science is useless!

[iNow]

Actual scientific discourse is quite a different thing from the disenfranchisement and lay-bashing that goes on on the speculations forum. I try to ask valid questions and tell people when they are obviously wrong but most people do it in a mean spirited way almost like getting on a forum and bashing people is their only form of entertainment.

 

Your argument is not against science, then, and you should not frame it as such.

 

Your problem seems to be more with the peer-review process, and the fact that members here participate in this community for entertainment and social reasons. If the idea can handle the onslaught, it will be accepted. That's the thing you're ignoring. If it's too rough for you, there may be a nice knitting forum somewhere for you to join. You can talk about yarn and the double-hook crossover method. It might be easier on your sensibilities and less offensive.

 

Science weeds out the weak. Only the strong survive. This is what makes it so powerful and why it's managed to advance humanity so profoundly.

 

Science ain't for sissies.

 

 

[bob000555]

Comparing an online science forum to an actual peer reviewed journal illustrates your unwanted self importance. My argument is not against science a proper scientific discourse is great. My argument is against people who seem to think that having some science knowledge them to sit on the editorial board of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Don’t take that the wrong way most of you do know more about science then me.)

 

Ever since I started posting on this forum I have been noticing an increasing number of people who have given themselves Nobel Prizes in their mind and are laughing at us punny obviously inferior people who disagree with them. By all means correct people when they are wrong, but do it to teach them and not to assert your (nerdy version of) primordial dominance. In short remember that people posting speculations are not submitting their thoughts for peer review, you are most likely not qualified to give peer review(though I know some people on this board are).

 

P.s I have never started a thread in the speculations forum, largely because I have few original thoughts. It is not that I can not take criticism for my posts it is that I get aggravated when I see pretensions, people suffering from a sever inferiority parading being rude to curios people.

 

P.p.s I spent a month at Johns Hopkins University over the summer I spoke to professors who are likely smarter then any of you they were all willing to share their knowledge and that is the true mark of an intellectual; telling people that their wrong is easy, even I can do it, actually sharing your knowledge is the mark of greatness.

Edited December 6, 2008 by bob000555