Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in the 70's should we have simply agreed with the scientists that said that the world was cooling and headed into a new ice age?
I am happy to suppose that you are totally right about this. Let's say that climatology theories from the 1970s were completely wrong. Does this failure mean that the guesses and opinions of average citizens are now as credible as biologists concerning the age of the earth, or cosmologists concerning the age of the universe?
Beware of the logical fallacy of "argument from authority." I'm sure you will be quick to agree that just because scientists say something, it doesn't mean it's right. But the fallacy goes deeper. Just because a theory in one branch of science is proven wrong, it does not necessarily follow that all other theories are wrong, or that scientists in general are all merely guessing about stuff. The main point: If you want to say anything the least bit useful about a theory, pro or con, it is necessary to understand the actual theory to some extent. Otherwise you are just expelling warm gas - which you have a right to do, but it's basically pointless in terms of intellectual significance.
Your links, however, do suggest an important concept to be considered: The weblike nature of most scientific theories. In some cases these interconnections could lead to wide-spread doubt. If, for example, some reliable data strongly indicated that the earth couldn't be more than 10,000 years old, then 100s, or perhaps 1000s, of important theories in physics, geology, biology, chemistry, and cosmology would all have to be deeply re-evaluated. This is because the age of the earth (within a few 100 million years, or so) is inextricably linked to a variety of core theories in a variety of branches of science. These basic, well-verified theories support each other, so if one were to fail in such a dramatic fashion, there would be widespread crisis in science. This is a double-edged sword; it is both a vulnerability as well as a tremendous strength.
The climate predictions of the 1970s were never part of the core group of theories in science, and they were not linked with the core theories in any way that mattered much to anyone. They were always known to be tentative, at best, so the failure of such theories came as no great shock to anyone. The modern global warming theories are far better supported than the 1970s climate theories, but I will happily grant that they are still not linked very closely to any of the core theories of science, and given the mind-boggling complexities of modeling complex systems like long-term climate, I would not be too shocked if global warming theories turn out to be wrong. Personally, I think the evidence for global warming is strong enough to merit world-wide precautions and preparations, but I would say this even if the global warming theories were only about 20% likely to be correct.
Anyway, unlike climate theories, the age of the universe is closely linked to a variety of core theories in physics. Variations of a billion years or so either way could be tolerated, although such major deviations would certainly narrow down the field of competing theories. A variation of 80 million years is significant in the sense that it helps support some theories and casts doubt on others, but it doesn't even come close to posing any threat to the core theories of physics.
Judging from a lot of the comments in this thread (indeed, in this whole forum), it appears that most people have no clue about what theories we are actually working with, or how they are interconnected.
When I asked for a list of major theories that were proven wrong, I was thinking more in terms of theories that linked up to the set of core theories, and thus would be of some relevance to the age of the universe, since this is the topic for this thread.
Doctor: Hey, we found a cure for your pancreatic cancer! Turns out we were incorrect about the exact biochemical pathways this whole time. But, thanks to rigorous experimentation and research, we've figured out how to target the cancer cells directly! You can start treatment right away.
MustangEater: No thanks. You were wrong about it before, and you can't prove that it will work. I'll just cure myself with faith. I'm religous you know.
Doctor: Um, ok. Also, here's some antibiotic for your daughter. I'm sorry she has strep throat, which is caused by bacteria.
MustangEater: Oh, no thanks. I don't believe that diseases like strep throat are caused by bacteria. See, the Germ theory of disease is JUST A THEORY. I think she's sick because she hasn't been praying hard enough. We'll just strengthen her faith and her sore throat will go away.
Perhaps a lesson in science is in order. The efficacy and effectiveness of antibiotics and certain cancer drugs is reproducible and verifiable. We are past the theory stage - at least with respect to simple bacteria like strep.
It takes more faith to believe that a "scientist" can determine what happened billions of years ago than any religion that I know of.
Faith in these silly conjectures is just that; silly.
That's just the thing - because you are not scientifically literate does not mean it is all a "silly conjecture."
Everyone knows that the product of scientific inquiry is not immediately an infallible fact, but rather a hypothesis that is built over time as evidence is gathered and analyzed. Of course scientific hypotheses can be proven wrong, in which case the scientific method will reject the hypothesis and go in search of a new one based on the evidence that can be brought forth.
In this case, let's just start with a very simple concept: do you know what the Doppler Effect is? It's the change in frequency of a wave from the perspective of an observer. It's that dip in sound that you hear when an ambulance with sirens on zips past you at high speed.
When you put out telescopes that are able to study electromagnetic waves in space, you can gather data on this phenomenon, too. In physics, when you do this with light and objects are moving away from you, i.e., proportionally increasing wavelength, you get a shift to the red end of the light spectrum, an observation known as "redshift".
This is one of the bases for the hypothesis that the universe is rapidly expanding. And from this comes the basis on which you can produce estimates of how old the universe might be. No one says they won't be prone to revision, but they are at least founded in a real and measurable data set.
So don't be silly and discount science just because you don't understand any of it and you learn of an instance where it needed to be revised. Science always needs to be revised, but your entire life IS the product of science, from the clothes you wear to the food you eat to the medical services you consume.
The "Aristotle" in me chafes at "inflation" - if the universe is "everything that exists", into "what" exactly is it expanding???
Space-time.
Space-time is the only thing that can move faster than light. Every object within space-time, from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, are all bound by the speed of light. Only space-time itself is capable of expanding faster than the speed of light, which is what happened during "inflation."
If they were wrong before, why should I believe them now?
They weren't wrong before. News articles and posters use more simplistic definitions of the facts. Even now they estimate the age to be +/- 0.4% which is around +/-60million years.
I am happy to suppose that you are totally right about this. Let's say that climatology theories from the 1970s were completely wrong. Does this failure mean that the guesses and opinions of average citizens are now as credible as biologists concerning the age of the earth, or cosmologists concerning the age of the universe?
Is science for the most part a better explanation than a guess? Indeed.
Quote:
Beware of the logical fallacy of "argument from authority." I'm sure you will be quick to agree that just because scientists say something, it doesn't mean it's right. But the fallacy goes deeper. Just because a theory in one branch of science is proven wrong, it does not necessarily follow that all other theories are wrong, or that scientists in general are all merely guessing about stuff. The main point: If you want to say anything the least bit useful about a theory, pro or con, it is necessary to understand the actual theory to some extent. Otherwise you are just expelling warm gas - which you have a right to do, but it's basically pointless in terms of intellectual significance.
Let me be clear. I am not trying to say that science is hogwash or that guesses or faith is superior. I am asking whether or not I can legitimately question science based upon the examples of science and not be a "flat earther, Charloton, or bought off by the oil companies"?
Quote:
Your links, however, do suggest an important concept to be considered: The weblike nature of most scientific theories. In some cases these interconnections could lead to wide-spread doubt. If, for example, some reliable data strongly indicated that the earth couldn't be more than 10,000 years old, then 100s, or perhaps 1000s, of important theories in physics, geology, biology, chemistry, and cosmology would all have to be deeply re-evaluated. This is because the age of the earth (within a few 100 million years, or so) is inextricably linked to a variety of core theories in a variety of branches of science. These basic, well-verified theories support each other, so if one were to fail in such a dramatic fashion, there would be widespread crisis in science. This is a double-edged sword; it is both a vulnerability as well as a tremendous strength.
The climate predictions of the 1970s were never part of the core group of theories in science, and they were not linked with the core theories in any way that mattered much to anyone. They were always known to be tentative, at best, so the failure of such theories came as no great shock to anyone. The modern global warming theories are far better supported than the 1970s climate theories, but I will happily grant that they are still not linked very closely to any of the core theories of science, and given the mind-boggling complexities of modeling complex systems like long-term climate, I would not be too shocked if global warming theories turn out to be wrong. Personally, I think the evidence for global warming is strong enough to merit world-wide precautions and preparations, but I would say this even if the global warming theories were only about 20% likely to be correct.
I believe this to be a reasoned argument.
Quote:
Anyway, unlike climate theories, the age of the universe is closely linked to a variety of core theories in physics. Variations of a billion years or so either way could be tolerated, although such major deviations would certainly narrow down the field of competing theories. A variation of 80 million years is significant in the sense that it helps support some theories and casts doubt on others, but it doesn't even come close to posing any threat to the core theories of physics.
I agree that refining the margin of error in no way means that the basic idea that the earth is very old is now somehow disputed.
Quote:
Judging from a lot of the comments in this thread (indeed, in this whole forum), it appears that most people have no clue about what theories we are actually working with, or how they are interconnected.
Quote:
When I asked for a list of major theories that were proven wrong, I was thinking more in terms of theories that linked up to the set of core theories, and thus would be of some relevance to the age of the universe, since this is the topic for this thread.
Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. So back to my original point. I agree that the theory (it's not really a theory but we will use that for discussion) that the earth is very old is not changed here. I realize by saying "why should I believe them now" I am being a bit antagonizing in that approach, but my point is obviously about something bigger.
Small errors can make quite a difference over the long term. Obviously science had made a lot of small errors over time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
