"Ten famous scientific theories that were wrong." Topic

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn't stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated.

link

Amazing that the Piltdown Man Hoax is not one of the most famous examples. Or how about modern medical nonsense like homeopathy, iridology and naturopathy?

Piltdown Man wasn't a theory. The other three aren't scientific.

Ptolemy's epicycles?
A lot of the "theories" were …. ahem ….. "consensus", weren't they?

"One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong."

Really?

Piltdown Man wasn't a theory. The other three aren't scientific.

Partially correct.

If Piltdown man didn't turn out to be a hoax, then the theory of how Homo Sapiens evolved from the australopithicines would have been overturned. In contrast, the discovery of Homo Naledi reinforces the current theory. So Piltdown wasn't a theory, but it is part of one.

As to homeopathy, iridology and naturapathy, you are correct. None of them have any scientific evidence. But that puts them of the same footing as the existence of the ether and phlogiston. No evidence for them either.

A lot of the "theories" were …. ahem ….. "consensus", weren't they?

Ya. Same as the current successful theories, like evolution, the germ theory, heliocentrism, plate tectonics, the classic atomic theory, etc., etc. What's your point? Plus, Pons and Fleischmann's Cold Fusion was never part of any consensus. It was attacked from the get-go.

Ptolemy's epicycles?

Yep, I think this is a better example than some on the list. It certainly lasted a long, long time. I can't be too hard on Ptolemy. He lived one and a half millenia before the first telescope. Plus, it's just common sense that the sun flies around the Earth……we see evidence of that every day. It's only until you pay closer attention to the other objects in the sky that things get complicated. Hence the epicycles.

Eh, not as much as you might think. Most predate the real formalization of science. So epicycles were never really a "theory" so much as a working model that was predictively useful. Spontaneous generation collapsed as soon as it was actually rigorously tested. Modern science doesn't reach a consensus until testing is done, so cold fusion was *never* a consensus because it never tested out. Even *then* all things are held provisionally awaiting a better fitting explanation. This is a good thing.

So epicycles were never really a "theory" so much as a working model that was predictively useful.

To be fair, the simplest definition of a scientific "theory" is a model of explanation that best describes the observations. Later on, as our thinking got more refined, we added concepts like falsifiability and predictability. Or Popper, and others, did.

How many Theories were simply simplistic but incomplete?
Aristotle believed that things fell because it was their nature to be down low.
Newton's law of gravity turned out to be incomplete at extremes. Maybe Einstein is incomplete at the edges also.
Quantum mechanics took over at the hairy edges too.

We "know" that as an object approaches the speed of light…. Oh, fill it in yourself.

Basically, the more we know, the more we realize what we don't know. Or, how much we need to know for completion.

How many Theories were simply simplistic but incomplete?

There's Asimov's Relativity of Wrong link

Interesting link, Martin. Appreciated.
Asimov goes into the empirical validity of the "Flat Earth Theory", when it's "up close and personal". At large scales, it falls apart.
I read a lot in my early days how Columbus proved that the world was NOT flat, but was round. And that "everybody" believed the world was flat. Nonsense. Sailors certainly knew the earth was round, as did any educated person familiar with the Greek philosophers.
Science is never static. It's always evolving.
But in practical terms, what works, works. A Travel Atlas showing all the highways of Pennsylvania need not be an oblate spheroid. Flat paper works just fine!

Where I lose it is in the concept of Dark Energy. However, a lot of that has to do with the fact that my first semester of Calculus got e a D. By ignoring my major Chemistry, I managed to claw my way up to a B, averaging a Gentleman's C. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to comprehend it. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, while keeping a Senior Citizen's skepticism about it.

I a also waiting to see if the "fundamental" particles can be split into something even smaller.
All we need is an accelerator capable of slamming Handwavium atoms into Vibranium at speeds faster than light. Isn't how the Big Bang originated? A Science Fair project gone wrong?

Sailors certainly knew the earth was round….

Are you sure, John?

There seems to be increasing written evidence (but not hard evidence) that European sailors, such as the Portuguese, Irish and Basques fishermen were fishing off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland well before Columbus. It's very likely they even made landfall, for water and other provisions. That doesn't mean they understood the Earth was round. It did mean they understood they were travelling great distances.

Where I lose it is in the concept of Dark Energy.

Well then, there is some forward motion with you. I remember when you claimed neither Dark Matter and Dark Energy existed. I remember linking to "gravitational lensing" articles for you.

As for Dark Energy, the level of understanding of it is so simple that both you and I can understand it. "Dark Energy" is a place holder name for a hypothetical force that no one really understands. But we do see it's effects. The visible matter that makes up the visible Universe is flying apart. In fact, despite the attractive force of gravity, an unknown repellent force is accelerating this expansion. We can't see it. So we know that it's an invisible (non radiating) force or energy that acts upon normal visible matter by overcoming it's gravitational attraction. Dark Energy seems a pretty good name until we learn more about it.

Isn't how the Big Bang originated? A Science Fair project gone wrong?

Lol.

A Travel Atlas showing all the highways of Pennsylvania need not be an oblate spheroid. Flat paper works just fine!

Cartographer here, maps are projections of 3d objects onto a 2d surface. Once you get past the size a good sized city, assuming a Euclidean surface gets you in trouble REALLY fast.

Sailors see a ship on the horizon first appear with the tip of the mast. Then they see more if the mast, and finally the hull.

So you admit it? Dark Etc is something you stick in an equation to make the numbers come out right? The Universal Fudge Factor?
That's ok. Like I said, my eyes glaze over sometimes. I'm not totally ignorant. At one time, I was able to extract cube roots on paper "as an exercise for the student." But like my high school French….
I never doubted it. I'm like a cannibal from the Trobriands having an eclipse explained to me. "Sure Doc. Whatever you say."

As for 2D maps, they are still useful. I got from State College Pa to Fort Sill Oklahoma in 2 days and didn't fall off the edge of the flat earth. Maybe the folding simulated 3D.

Sailors see a ship on the horizon first appear with the tip of the mast. Then they see more if the mast, and finally the hull.

Yes, thanks, I'm well aware of that. You don't need the sea to notice this effect. From 1.5 miles away on a flat patch, you can't see a man on a camel or horse. I also suspect that sailors are well aware of other optical effects, such as looming. If it was that obvious we would have known the Earth was round way earlier. Evan before Eratosthenes. By the way, cars disappear at the 2.4km mark at the Bonneville Salt Flats.

link

So you admit it? Dark Etc is something you stick in an equation to make the numbers come out right? The Universal Fudge Factor?

Admit what? Dark matter has been (indirectly) observed many time. Look it up.

Dark Energy is a bit different. Let's go back to #1 on the list from the link, the "discovery" of the planet Vulcan. In the mid 1800's it was noticed that Mercury had perturbations in it's orbit around the Sun. Something was making Mercury wobble, that was manifestly obvious. Some suspected another planet, pulling on Mercury to distort it's orbital pathway.

Ultimately they were wrong, and it was 65 years later that Einstein explained the effect with General Relativity. The original scientists, like Le Verrier, were not totally wrong. Looking at the perturbations of the movement of extra solar suns, allowed us to find exoplanets. Asimov's Relativity comes to mind.

So, just like the aberrant nature of Mercury's orbit, we have a well observed phenomenon in the accelerating expansion of the Universe. We have a good understanding of how gravity works. Therefore something must be counteracting the attractive forces of gravity. That's not a Fudge Factor. It's an observation that needs explanation.

What about all that 'science' on the Ghosts Channel?