Re: Fascinating

Fascinating (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 14:38 (#2TJ8)

I've been paying closer attention to other fields of science recently, and wasn't aware of any of this stuff, so I find it endlessly fascinating. Every generation, I think, is willing to laugh at the false theories that previous generations accepted as fact before eventually finding there was a better explanation, without taking the time to wonder how many of their "facts" will eventually be overturned by future scientists looking for more accurate explanations.

That this stuff is happening - in the USA, at least - despite a culture increasingly hostile to the "educated elite" and whatever other impolite names the likes of Sarah Palin came up with for people who like science - is even more fascinating. Kudos to the boffins!

Re: Fascinating (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 18:48 (#2TJN)

It's a debate I keep having... Trying to convince people not to too-firmly base their conclusions on some currently accepted theories where the supporting evidence is weak or there are known unresolved problems. Just because nobody has disproven theory X yet, doesn't mean it's a good idea to go out and start bloodletting sick patients...

DNA/genomics was particularly solid, but had some red-flags in the form of obvious outward differences of DNA-identical twins, which epigenetics is now helping to resolve.

http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/Identical-Twins-And-Dna.htm

I am similarly cautious about theories on dark matter, most conclusions drawn from the rather patchy fossil record, etc.

It's more of a nuisance with nutritional or diet theory-of-the-week, and generally people not well-informed enough to see Dr. Oz and his ilk as the bald-faced lying flim-flam artists they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz#Scientific_validity

Re: Fascinating (Score: 2, Interesting)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 19:46 (#2TJQ)

Trying to convince people not to too-firmly base their conclusions on some currently accepted theories where the supporting evidence is weak or there are known unresolved problems.

Not sure if I agree here. I have quite a good scientific education. However, in 99.99% of all scientific fields I am just layman. All people are. Nowadays nobody can have a complete overview over science. Not even a complete overview in once specific field, e.g. physics. So you have to go with the masses = currently accepted theories. And this is fine as long as one has a base knowledge how science works: You develop a hypothesis. You try to find evidence, which supports your hypothesis. And most importantly you also try to find evidence, which disproves your hypothesis. If something disproves your hypothesis, you drop it immediately, or try to adjust it so that there is no contradiction. This way you can develop your theory. Weak evidence? As long no contradicting evidence not a real problem just a reason for more research. Known unresolved problems? Does not necessarily devalue your theory. Might be that it can be extended. DNA inheritance is not wrong just because there also are epigenetic effects.

I am similarly cautious about theories on dark matter,

I am not. It is the currently accepted theory. It does not contradict anything else I learned. I am not able to disprove it, or do otherwise substantial work on this field. So I accept dark matter as what it currently is: An attempt to explain certain observations. If anyone comes with a better explanation... I'd immediately drop dark matter. Give me enough evidence I'd forgo everything I learned. Give me enough evidence, and I 'believe' in unicorns and magic.

Btw... to be exact: The existence of dark matter is currently no theory, but only a hypothesis. To become a theory it needs evidence for its existence beyond being a pure mathematical trick to explain otherwise unexplainable observed gravitational effects.
Furthermore in science you cannot say 'it is only a theory'. There is nothing 'higher' than a theory in science. Theory of relativity (general or special) I am not sure there is a theory, which has been so thoroughly tested. Probably thousands of experiments, which confirm the theory of relativity. And it is still a theory... an will ever be... unless someone proves it wrong.

It's more of a nuisance with nutritional or diet theory-of-the-week,

Nutritional or diet theory is mostly neither a hypothesis nor a theory.... the best term to describe most of this field is 'religion'.

Story

Preview