2 ms·

Again, just because it's possible that there's more to cover doesn't make it true. I don't see how the pace of understanding is important. It presumes that we

by kiba 5y ago

Again, just because it's possible that there's more to cover doesn't make it true. I don't see how the pace of understanding is important. It presumes that we are somehow getting closer to the "truth", the absolute nature of reality. That is not how science works. It says nothing of "truth" OK, you can argue semantic all you want, but science is pretty much the closest thing we have to 'truth'. The acceleration of the last couple hundred years only says that we are getting better at refining the current model to match current testing capabilities, but it doesn't make the model impervious to some bit of information we could discovery that destroys its entire validity. No. Newton's Law isn't invalidated just because we came up with relativity. It's useful enough that we still use it to calculate orbit and teach students and do a kazillion things with it. It is incorrect to assume that one day in the future that some new theory will destroy our previous understanding and invalidate everything we know.

iainmerrick 5y ago
Here’s a possible counterexample: our understanding of the overall shape and structure of the universe has changed drastically over the last 100 years. The concept of a “galaxy” is fairly new; the idea that the universe is expanding is fairly new and was initially shocking (most scientists had assumed a steady state); the idea that expansion is accelerating is new and surprising.
colordrops 5y ago
Constellations are still useful for teaching the stars, but it doesn't mean that mythical beings embedded themselves in the sky. Discovering that the earth was not the center of the universe pretty much did invalidate everything we know about cosmology. Newton's laws are fine for now, but once again, it doesn't make them truth. It makes them useful tools. We can't confuse useful for true, that's the entire point, because one day, even if it's still useful, there's a chance it will be found to not be true.

by kiba 5y ago

iainmerrick 5y ago

Here’s a possible counterexample: our understanding of the overall shape and structure of the universe has changed drastically over the last 100 years. The concept of a “galaxy” is fairly new; the idea that the universe is expanding is fairly new and was initially shocking (most scientists had assumed a steady state); the idea that expansion is accelerating is new and surprising.

colordrops 5y ago

Constellations are still useful for teaching the stars, but it doesn't mean that mythical beings embedded themselves in the sky. Discovering that the earth was not the center of the universe pretty much did invalidate everything we know about cosmology. Newton's laws are fine for now, but once again, it doesn't make them truth. It makes them useful tools. We can't confuse useful for true, that's the entire point, because one day, even if it's still useful, there's a chance it will be found to not be true.