6 ms·
The thing you're not considering is that you weren't alive for those theories. Prior mainstream theories of the universe that are now debunked were absolutely s
by Loughla 2y ago
The thing you're not considering is that you weren't alive for those theories. Prior mainstream theories of the universe that are now debunked were absolutely supported in the same fashion by 'the establishment' (for however that phrase is useful).
That being said, when they were the best models we had they made sense to support.
That's how theories work?
And I would ask what alternatives to current dark matter and/or age of the universe you believe there are. Because I would argue it's not about thought police but more about using the best theories we have until they are proven incorrect.
That's genuinely basic science. If you don't understand that, then I'm not really sure what to do from there. (https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what...)
I have no idea what thermophlogistonics is, and there are no Google search results for it. But based on the aether theory, I can deduce it was just a sort of pre-Einstein theory of the universe.
- pwatsonwailes 2y agoHe means phlogiston. He's just inventing words to make it sound more interesting than it is.
- haccount 2y agoIf you have a theory that doesn't match observation then that theory is wrong and you say it's wrong and stop using it. You don't need to outsource your thinking to an external committee of glacially moving bureaucracy to decide for science to move forward by wholesale replacing one theory with another. Thermophlogistonics is what we'd have today if we decided that the phlogiston theory is the way to go, we just need to decide that the Phlogiston is a Dark Particle we can't actually observe and then derive thermodynamics from experimental observation, followed by super gluing the two together as to not embarass the prestigious old guard that still believes in the perpetually unobserved phlogiston.
- Loughla 2y ago>committee of glacially moving bureaucracy to decide for science to move forward by wholesale replacing one theory with another. Are you saying that this exists today? I feel like you want there to be some nefarious behind the scenes Snidely Whiplash sort of character keeping science held back, and that's just not the case. We use the current theories and not phlogiston or whatever your straw man theory is because they're the best ones we have right now. They will change with new information. It legitimately seems like you don't understand the basics of the scientific process.
- haccount 2y agoAll of human history is full of Snidely Whiplash characters refusing to let go of the first-mover theories they grew into, no matter the evidence of the contrary. My observation is simply that today is a part of history and thus is still padded with these caricatures and their sycophant yes-men. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” -Max Planck, physicist of some renown, prescient of this and many other comment threads
- some_furry 2y agoThe thing stopping people from moving on from today's theories is there isn't a better one available to move onto.
- Loughla 2y agoThat's the point I was trying to get across. It's not that they're perfect or even right. They're just the best we have. Like aether and 4 elements and miasma. It wasn't great but it's what we had.
- haccount 2y agoWe have a suspect. We know he didn't murder our victim as he was abroad. But until we have a better suspect we'll still charge him for the murder. How law would work if it followed your patten of how science supposedly operate.
- Loughla 2y agoI do not, legitimately, know how to respond to you now. That is just amazingly uninformed and ridiculous. Have a nice week!