3 ms·

It's a bit of an impossible ask though. If a "scientific idea" is one which is supported by the balance of the evidence at this time, then no current scientific

It's a bit of an impossible ask though. If a "scientific idea" is one which is supported by the balance of the evidence at this time, then no current scientific idea is ready for retirement. Scientific ideas don't "have to" contain some "failure". If they do, we don't know about it yet. When we do, we retire it proactively. Unless you zero in on one idea where the balance of evidence has very very recently shifted against it, you have to look a bit further than the "current theories/hypotheses" space, into the philosophical ideas, which is what Dawkins is doing. What would you suggest as a scientific idea ready for retirement?

tedunangst 12y ago
Perhaps he could answer the question, what is the most recently retired scientific idea? I imagine it's likely most readers are unaware that that idea (whatever it is) has been retired.
- smsm42 12y ago
  Clockwork universe is one prominent idea which was very popular and has been completely retired by now.
- lutusp 12y ago
  I can think of a few, starting with a very recently retired idea: 1. All biological life depends on sunlight. Falsified first by bacterial colonies that thrive near deep-sea volcanic vents. 2. Light requires an ether for its transmission. Falsified by the classic Michelson-Morley experiment. 3. The universe is static in overall size, "... which required Professor Einstein to add a cosmological constant to his intellectual masterpiece to make it agree with observation." Falsified soon after by observations that led to the Big Bang theory. 4. Phlogiston, the idea that burning matter relied on a hypothetical essence responsible for the combustion. 5. Universal and constant space and time, an idea favored by Isaac Newton, falsified by relativity. 6. Inheritance of acquired traits, falsified by modern genetics (but to some extent argued with by the new field of epigenetics). Just a few that come to mind.
MattHeard 12y ago
I think that Thomas Kuhn would disagree. The scientific community works within paradigms which adequately explain their experiments. There may be some weird results, but as long as they remain few, new scientists will remain convinced of the paradigm's merits. The areas of weird results are the most interesting, and attract attention and further exploration. When the weird results multiply after further investigation, ad hoc modifications to the theories of the paradigm might be necessary. This might work for a while, satisfying the scientists' need to explain their results. However, ad hoc changes may push the paradigm to its limits. Crisis occurs within the scientific community. Scientists may start to abandon core tenets of the paradigm in search for new theories which are better at explaining all the weird results. The paradigm might be so ingrained into the world-view of its scientists that only young scientists who are yet to be indoctrinated might be able to see past it. The famous examples are of relativity, quantum physics, and heliocentrism. Ptolemaic geocentrism, particularly, had a lot of ad hoc modifications to explain the loopy movement of planets. In this sense, scientific ideas are certainly retired. More can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories If someone understands Kuhn and philosophy of science better than me, please correct me. I know that Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend have different views on "scientific progress", but Thomas Kuhn is the only one I have read on this topic.
pella 12y ago
"2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?" * "Evidence-Based Medicine" * "Large Randomized Controlled Trials" * "Things Are Either True Or False" * "Psychogenic Illness" * "Replication As a Safety Net" * "Reproducibility" * "Falsifiability" * "The Power of Statistics" * "Certainty. Absolute Truth. Exactitude." * "The Rational Individual" * "IQ" * "Mind Versus Matter" * "Infinity" * "Statistical Significance" * "Artificial Intelligence" * "Theories of Anything" * "Computer Science" * "Simplicity" * "Scientific Morality" ( details : http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-... )
- belovedeagle 12y ago
  Thanks for the link. After reading the "Computer Science" entry I'm ready to recant and call Dawkins' essay flawless in comparison.
- appstateguy 12y ago
  It seems to me that Dawkins' response was an attempt to address the "root" of many of these problem. Essentialism is necessary for people to understand by creating idealistic meaning, but in doing so you also lose knowledge by creating an abstraction. Having said that, I'm not sure how you could "retire" this concept since we, as humans, rely on abstractions for everything (language, math, morals, etc). I feel his point is just that scientists should keep this in mind, as a check against the ego which is what leads to dogmatic thinking. Edit: Thinking more about it I think that Dawkins' answer was a good one, but it seems like he in a way misunderstands its meaning. He uses it to showcase how it can be used to 'mislead' people into disbelieving things like evolution, but he doesn't seem to recognize that if you were to completely remove the concept of essentialism you would essentially have to accept that science can never describe everything and at some point one just has to accept things as they are without meaning. This implies, then, that science is just one 'perspective' for giving meaning to something that is essentially meaningless. This to me would also mean that science and religion are not opposing forces but simply different ways at looking at the same thing.
lutusp 12y ago
> Scientific ideas don't "have to" contain some "failure". That may be true, but all of them are subject to falsification by new evidence, and none of them move beyond challenge -- none of them become true in a final sense -- only false.

tedunangst 12y ago

Perhaps he could answer the question, what is the most recently retired scientific idea? I imagine it's likely most readers are unaware that that idea (whatever it is) has been retired.

smsm42 12y ago
Clockwork universe is one prominent idea which was very popular and has been completely retired by now.
lutusp 12y ago
I can think of a few, starting with a very recently retired idea: 1. All biological life depends on sunlight. Falsified first by bacterial colonies that thrive near deep-sea volcanic vents. 2. Light requires an ether for its transmission. Falsified by the classic Michelson-Morley experiment. 3. The universe is static in overall size, "... which required Professor Einstein to add a cosmological constant to his intellectual masterpiece to make it agree with observation." Falsified soon after by observations that led to the Big Bang theory. 4. Phlogiston, the idea that burning matter relied on a hypothetical essence responsible for the combustion. 5. Universal and constant space and time, an idea favored by Isaac Newton, falsified by relativity. 6. Inheritance of acquired traits, falsified by modern genetics (but to some extent argued with by the new field of epigenetics). Just a few that come to mind.

MattHeard 12y ago

I think that Thomas Kuhn would disagree. The scientific community works within paradigms which adequately explain their experiments. There may be some weird results, but as long as they remain few, new scientists will remain convinced of the paradigm's merits. The areas of weird results are the most interesting, and attract attention and further exploration. When the weird results multiply after further investigation, ad hoc modifications to the theories of the paradigm might be necessary. This might work for a while, satisfying the scientists' need to explain their results. However, ad hoc changes may push the paradigm to its limits. Crisis occurs within the scientific community. Scientists may start to abandon core tenets of the paradigm in search for new theories which are better at explaining all the weird results. The paradigm might be so ingrained into the world-view of its scientists that only young scientists who are yet to be indoctrinated might be able to see past it. The famous examples are of relativity, quantum physics, and heliocentrism. Ptolemaic geocentrism, particularly, had a lot of ad hoc modifications to explain the loopy movement of planets. In this sense, scientific ideas are certainly retired. More can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories If someone understands Kuhn and philosophy of science better than me, please correct me. I know that Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend have different views on "scientific progress", but Thomas Kuhn is the only one I have read on this topic.

pella 12y ago

"2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?" * "Evidence-Based Medicine" * "Large Randomized Controlled Trials" * "Things Are Either True Or False" * "Psychogenic Illness" * "Replication As a Safety Net" * "Reproducibility" * "Falsifiability" * "The Power of Statistics" * "Certainty. Absolute Truth. Exactitude." * "The Rational Individual" * "IQ" * "Mind Versus Matter" * "Infinity" * "Statistical Significance" * "Artificial Intelligence" * "Theories of Anything" * "Computer Science" * "Simplicity" * "Scientific Morality" ( details : http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement http://edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-... )

belovedeagle 12y ago
Thanks for the link. After reading the "Computer Science" entry I'm ready to recant and call Dawkins' essay flawless in comparison.
appstateguy 12y ago
It seems to me that Dawkins' response was an attempt to address the "root" of many of these problem. Essentialism is necessary for people to understand by creating idealistic meaning, but in doing so you also lose knowledge by creating an abstraction. Having said that, I'm not sure how you could "retire" this concept since we, as humans, rely on abstractions for everything (language, math, morals, etc). I feel his point is just that scientists should keep this in mind, as a check against the ego which is what leads to dogmatic thinking. Edit: Thinking more about it I think that Dawkins' answer was a good one, but it seems like he in a way misunderstands its meaning. He uses it to showcase how it can be used to 'mislead' people into disbelieving things like evolution, but he doesn't seem to recognize that if you were to completely remove the concept of essentialism you would essentially have to accept that science can never describe everything and at some point one just has to accept things as they are without meaning. This implies, then, that science is just one 'perspective' for giving meaning to something that is essentially meaningless. This to me would also mean that science and religion are not opposing forces but simply different ways at looking at the same thing.

lutusp 12y ago

> Scientific ideas don't "have to" contain some "failure". That may be true, but all of them are subject to falsification by new evidence, and none of them move beyond challenge -- none of them become true in a final sense -- only false.