5 Times Scientists were wrong!

[TheIryals]

Hi everyone, i made a video about 5 Times Scientists were wrong. I hope you learned something from this, and if i were wrong on some of the issues then please tell me in the comment section

video link removed per rules

Edited October 5, 2016 by Phi for All
Science discussion site - not for advertising

[CharonY]

First of all, according to our rules you should provide a summary so that we can discuss things without watching an external video. Second of all, scientists are wrong all the time. It is part of our job to explore things and test hypotheses. I have been wrong at least five times since breakfast...

[Phi for All]

I hope you learned something from this,

 

!

Moderator Note

I learned that people don't read the rules anymore.

 

If you can print your evidence so we can discuss it without leaving the site or watching videos, please do so here.

[EdEarl]

You haven't done much research into errors made by scientists. It should be easy to find 50, a bit harder to find 500, but if you really work at it you should be able to find more than 5000. Here are some.

 

The elements were thought to be earth, air, fire, and water.

The Earth was thought to be the center of the Universe.

The Universe was thought to be the Milky Way Galaxy.

Galaxies were once called nebula.

The continents were thought to be fixed for all time.

Scientists searched for a method to make gold by mixing various chemicals.

Light was thought to travel in aether.

Airplanes were thought to be able to travel only slower than sound.

and many more.

[Danijel Gorupec]

That is too easy. Here is a more difficult task... find 5 times when scientists were wrong but then either religion or some political ideology finally provided the correct answer.

[Sriman Dutta]

Hmmmmm.........Danijel I don't know the cases.

For the OP, I suggest the following example.

Once a guy told Thomas Alva Edison while he was busy making the electric bulb, " Thomas, you have discovered nothing so far. You have failed a thousand times. It's not possible."

Edison replied, "What, I have found a thousand different ways in which an electric bulb cannot be made."

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for pointing out 5 of the many occasions where science has corrected itself.

I doing so you have shown its major advantage over some other "belief systems".

[Function]

There's a quote someone made (can't remember who it was), basically saying a scientist hasn't discovered / is about to discover something when saying "Eureka!", but "Hmm ... strange".

 

Hmm ... strange is something you say when making mistakes, based on current knowledge. Leaving and protesting what is known can only help us in discovering new things. Ergo, making errors is making progress.

 

No evolution without error.

[Strange]

There's a quote someone made (can't remember who it was), basically saying a scientist hasn't discovered / is about to discover something when saying "Eureka!", but "Hmm ... strange".

 

Asimov, I think.

 

Or maybe not: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/03/02/eureka-funny/

Edited October 7, 2016 by Strange

[Function]

 

Asimov, I think.

 

Or maybe not: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/03/02/eureka-funny/

 

Ah yes, exactly, that's what I meant. "Wait a minute" is also how I should've remembered it (and how I read it first), but my brains obviously interpreted it as "Hmm ... strange"

 

Thanks, Strange

[Alex_Krycek]

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

[StringJunky]

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

Conventional scientific philosophy is that nothing is certain and information evolves; history has shown this many times. Science is only resistant to ideas that have no evidence to support them. Scientists know they are never right in the absolute sense and accept a certain state of constant uncertainty or flux. Your assessment is way out.

[Phi for All]

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

 

Like the belief systems that need to caricaturize science as being riddled with errors, hidebound, and resistant to change?

[arc]

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

 

Conventional scientific philosophy is that nothing is certain and information evolves; history has shown this many times. Science is only resistant to ideas that have no evidence to support them. Scientists know they are never right in the absolute sense and accept a certain state of constant uncertainty or flux. Your assessment is way out.

 

Bold mine.

 

Except for those on the wrong side of a major paradigm change. Scientists are as human as anyone and having your past body of work suddenly viewed from a new and revolutionary perspective that directly diminishes the relevance it had held in the years prior would produce a reactionary response in almost anyone in general. And even more so if your life's work may now appear to have been off the mark and misguided to some degree or your direction of study no longer appears as capable as before.

 

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK.HTM

 

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

 

Plate Tectonics - A Case Study

 

"The paranoid tone of pseudoscience occasionally surfaces in the works of orthodox scientists; not, as one might expect, in the works of scientists who are trying to bring about a scientific revolution, but more often than not in the works of scientists who are resisting change. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, for example, as the opinion of most geologists was swinging in favor of continental drift (as it was still called), a few conservative geologists fought a rear-guard action against its acceptance. Interestingly enough, the more the evidence favored drift, so that one could be justified in referring to opposition to drift as pseudoscience, the more striking the parallels became between the writings of the anti-drifters and the tactics we see in other pseudoscientists. There was, for example, the familiar tactic of downgrading findings to the level of "hypothesis" or "speculation". And of course there were charges of ulterior motives and unscientific conduct."

 

"Although the scientific knowledge of these writers is immeasurably greater, the rhetoric is scarcely distinguishable in tone from that of any other pseudoscientists. I was going to graduate school at Columbia University when these papers appeared. The Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University was one of the research centers most heavily involved in the research that led to the confirmation of continental drift. The reaction of the Lamont scientists to the anti-drift articles was not so much anger as amused, open-mouthed incredulity that any scientist would actually put his name on something like that."

 

Not that I've had any personal experience with this behavior from anyone here, mind you.

 

BTW Steven Dutch's blog is worth the read.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Bold mine.

 

Except for those on the wrong side of a major paradigm change. Scientists are as human as anyone and having your past body of work suddenly viewed from a new and revolutionary perspective that directly diminishes the relevance it had held in the years prior would produce a reactionary response in almost anyone in general. And even more so if your life's work may now appear to have been off the mark and misguided to some degree or your direction of study no longer appears as capable as before.

And no doubt you are currently on the right side of a revolutionary paradigm. I didn't say "scientists" I said "science"; I was speaking of the the overarching principle of this discipline; the change to the new padradigm still occurs regardless of the feelings of any individual....this is the wonderful thing about science... it doesn't give a shit about ones feelings.

[Strange]

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

 

 

There is an element of human nature. Some people are very resistant to paradigm changes (and some people are overly enthusiastic about novel ideas). But that rarely has any significant effect on the acceptance of new paradigms (otherwise science wouldn't progress).

 

The fact that science is resistant to new ideas is what gives it whatever "authority" it does have. The fact that hypotheses have to be tested repeatedly in different ways before they become accepted as new theories means that those theories are robust. Until proven wrong, of course. But you don't want new theories being adapted each year like fashion trends. You need them to be well-supported and stable so they can be used for the development of the next generation of new ideas.

[John Cuthber]

Science doesn't get things wrong.

 

Scientists get things wrong a lot.

Reality then corrects their errors, and science edits them out.

[Ophiolite]

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

It is an interesting claim. Would you like to give three examples of errors that riddle authoritative positions held by science? Since there are "many errors" you should have no difficulty proposing three. Remember, these need to be ones that deeply embed matters on which science holds an authoritative position, else they could not be described as riddling. I look forward to your reply.

[TheIryals]

 

!

Moderator Note

I learned that people don't read the rules anymore.

 

If you can print your evidence so we can discuss it without leaving the site or watching videos, please do so here.

 

I'm really sorry, I tried looking for the rules but couldn't find them, I have found them now though. I'll be sure to provide a summary next time.

It's an interesting fact about science that there are so many errors riddled into everything that it claims to have authority on, and that there is so much resistance to new ideas and concepts that contravene the status quo. Ultimately I think it comes down to human nature: human beings like the psychological security of a certain paradigm or belief system and feel deeply unsettled when they are in a state of psychological chaos.

 

Yeah I know scientists are wrong often, and that it's part of the job (I study sciences myself), I just thought it would be fun to make a video about the biggest (interesting) mistakes scientists have made (in recent history).

You haven't done much research into errors made by scientists. It should be easy to find 50, a bit harder to find 500, but if you really work at it you should be able to find more than 5000. Here are some.

 

The elements were thought to be earth, air, fire, and water.

The Earth was thought to be the center of the Universe.

The Universe was thought to be the Milky Way Galaxy.

Galaxies were once called nebula.

The continents were thought to be fixed for all time.

Scientists searched for a method to make gold by mixing various chemicals.

Light was thought to travel in aether.

Airplanes were thought to be able to travel only slower than sound.

and many more.

Yes I know that scientists have made thousands of mistake, but as I wrote above, I only chose the most interesting (in my opinion) in recent history, because scientists made a lot of mistakes, back in the day, that in our time seem completely obvious.

[Tim88]

And no doubt you are currently on the right side of a revolutionary paradigm. I didn't say "scientists" I said "science"; I was speaking of the the overarching principle of this discipline; the change to the new padradigm still occurs regardless of the feelings of any individual....this is the wonderful thing about science... it doesn't give a shit about ones feelings.

 

Science happens to be the averaging out of opinions of scientists. As you indicated, those are sometimes in error. Also a new paradigm may be revolutionary but still incorrect; science is just as much affected by fashion as scientists.

In the long term of course much of that is ironed out, simply because generations of scientists die out and are replaced by new ones (that's a paraphrase, not originating with me, but I forgot who said that first).

 

I'm really sorry, I tried looking for the rules but couldn't find them, I have found them now though. I'll be sure to provide a summary next time.

 

Yeah I know scientists are wrong often, and that it's part of the job (I study sciences myself), I just thought it would be fun to make a video about the biggest (interesting) mistakes scientists have made (in recent history). [..]

 

Better do so, for now the thread is freewheeling on its own, since we don't know which examples you find most interesting.

[DrP]

QUOTE: ..."Eureka!!..

 

 

I always thought that was Archimedes - I remember a little cartoon of him jumping out of the bath with his hair all over the place flapping his arms in excitement. lol.

 

 

... google thinks so too.

[DanTrentfield]

Hi everyone, i made a video about 5 Times Scientists were wrong. I hope you learned something from this, and if i were wrong on some of the issues then please tell me in the comment section

video link removed per rules

Part of the learning experience in science is being wrong. You have to make a mistake to realize a mistake. Present well rounded points, Study hard. Fact can only be found be highlighting what is fiction, and fiction requires experiment to prove it is fiction.

[DrKrettin]

QUOTE: ..."Eureka!!..

 

 

I always thought that was Archimedes - I remember a little cartoon of him jumping out of the bath with his hair all over the place flapping his arms in excitement. lol.

 

 

... google thinks so too.

 

Plutarch reports it was Archimedes in non posse suaviter...1094C2 "..μέτρησιν οἷον ἔκ τινος κατοχῆς ἢ ἐπιπνοίας ἐξήλατο βοῶν ‘εὕρηκα’, καὶ τοῦτο πολλάκις φθεγγόμενος ἐβάδιζεν. "

[DanTrentfield]

QUOTE: ..."Eureka!!..

 

 

I always thought that was Archimedes - I remember a little cartoon of him jumping out of the bath with his hair all over the place flapping his arms in excitement. lol.

 

 

... google thinks so too.

Well the greeks did like their public nudity..... A lot.