3 ms·

Probably all of it, if we extrapolate from the history of science. The theories we have now have replaced theories we now consoider wrong or less correct. No re

Probably all of it, if we extrapolate from the history of science. The theories we have now have replaced theories we now consoider wrong or less correct. No reason to think this will stop.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
That's not actually true. We refine the theories, making them more accurate or extend them to cover a wider range of situations, but the theories usually hold out pretty well. Newton didn't address some things that Einstein did, but within their scope - which is most of human perceptual experience - they are accurate.
- dave333 3y ago
  Lots of theories have been thrown out and replaced completely although no big ones recently. Will the explanation of dark matter require refinement or replacement - most are looking for some new particle or maybe some new wrinkle about gravity but maybe it will require a revolution.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Lots of theories have been thrown out and replaced completely Which ones? I don't know of settled science that has been found to be false, but maybe I just don't know. Sometimes a new theory might eclipse another theory - cover all that ground and more, but that doesn't make the prior theory wrong in any way. My new, faster laptop doesn't mean the old one didn't work.
    - lcuff 3y ago
      Phlogiston theory, formulated in 1667 - 1703 and being used 80-100 years later for its explanatory power, was a complete misconception of burning, heat and oxidation, is one example. Phlogiston theory is post-Baconian. To me, Bacon was the first to articulate the method of thoughts that characterize good modern science: Observations, theory, prediction, experiments to verify the predictions. So I don't think saying we've thrown out pre-Baconian theories is germane to the conversation. There is a Wikipedia page for Superseded theories in science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > Phlogiston theory, formulated in 1667 - 1703 If that's the best you have, we agree! :)
    - bazoom42 3y ago
      So what would make a theory wrong then?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        I'm distinguishing between 1) the theory being correct, but not in newly discovered or broader circumstances. Newton didn't know about black holes, and 2) the theory being actually false - it makes false statements about the world.
        bazoom42 3y ago
        It is not like relativistic effects only manifest around black holes or near-lightspeed travel. The effects are just more noticable.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  By that logic geocentrism was also accurate.

Probably all of it, if we extrapolate from the history of science. The theories we have now have replaced theories we now consoider wrong or less correct. No reason to think this will stop.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wolverine876 3y ago

That's not actually true. We refine the theories, making them more accurate or extend them to cover a wider range of situations, but the theories usually hold out pretty well. Newton didn't address some things that Einstein did, but within their scope - which is most of human perceptual experience - they are accurate.

dave333 3y ago
Lots of theories have been thrown out and replaced completely although no big ones recently. Will the explanation of dark matter require refinement or replacement - most are looking for some new particle or maybe some new wrinkle about gravity but maybe it will require a revolution.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Lots of theories have been thrown out and replaced completely Which ones? I don't know of settled science that has been found to be false, but maybe I just don't know. Sometimes a new theory might eclipse another theory - cover all that ground and more, but that doesn't make the prior theory wrong in any way. My new, faster laptop doesn't mean the old one didn't work.
  - lcuff 3y ago
    Phlogiston theory, formulated in 1667 - 1703 and being used 80-100 years later for its explanatory power, was a complete misconception of burning, heat and oxidation, is one example. Phlogiston theory is post-Baconian. To me, Bacon was the first to articulate the method of thoughts that characterize good modern science: Observations, theory, prediction, experiments to verify the predictions. So I don't think saying we've thrown out pre-Baconian theories is germane to the conversation. There is a Wikipedia page for Superseded theories in science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Phlogiston theory, formulated in 1667 - 1703 If that's the best you have, we agree! :)
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    So what would make a theory wrong then?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I'm distinguishing between 1) the theory being correct, but not in newly discovered or broader circumstances. Newton didn't know about black holes, and 2) the theory being actually false - it makes false statements about the world.
      - bazoom42 3y ago
        It is not like relativistic effects only manifest around black holes or near-lightspeed travel. The effects are just more noticable.
bazoom42 3y ago
By that logic geocentrism was also accurate.