3 ms·
It could be the opposite. Researchers could be less cynical / skeptical back then about things that are real but can't be seen.
by shmerl 5y ago
It could be the opposite. Researchers could be less cynical / skeptical back then about things that are real but can't be seen.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoWhen the consensus was wrong they often didn't readily accept the correct interpretation. Miasma theory persisted into the 20th century for example.
- hinkley 5y agoPut a few beers into your system and the Higgs field sounds an awful lot like The Aether. Hell, even a page trying to debunk Higgs=ether muddies the water: > If the already small mass of electrons was zero, as it would be without a Higgs field, then everything would just disintegrate So no Higgs field, and electromagnetism (one of the things the Aether supposedly carried) stops working. Distinct, but not disconnected.
- roywiggins 5y agoIt's kind of a shame it didn't stick around, since it is closer to the real dynamics of COVID-19 (and flu, probably) than the droplet dogma that replaced it. It turns out there really are invisible floating clouds around that can get you sick.
- he0001 5y agoDo you have some articles to read about this? About covid and “floating clouds”? I thought the consensus still was on “droplets”.
- roywiggins 5y agoThe consensus was that there was a sharp cutoff between large particles (fall out of the air, transmit virus) and small ones (float around but doesn't transmit). It turns out this is not really based on anything other than tradition. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0049 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2021.004...
- numpad0 5y agoMaybe the belief that everything must be human perceptible was the real breakthrough. “Fruit flies occur naturally from miasma” sounds simple enough.