Science Changes Its Mind

[naomi24]

New Horizons spacecraft 'alters theory of planet formation'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51295365

Perhaps now we may now once again open up this section to all and sundry releasing it from the ridiculous imposition that anything posted here must conform to current scientific thinking. Current scientific thinking is often short lived.

[Theland]

Spike Psarris dismissed the old idea in his video.

[naomi24]

He's a charlatan... but apart from that, your religion has no place here.

[jim360]

That was never the imposition. Not even remotely close to it. Science is not, and never has been, a set of "facts", or prevailing theories. It's about the method.

[JimF]

Naomi, I don't always agree with you, but here you are 100% correct.

[Theland]

I am not talking religion.
I am talking about planet formation.

[woofgang]

But isn't that the point? why post arguments based on the disproved stuff?

[Theland]

What did the 'charlatan' say specifically they you disagreed with?

[sanmac]

You little devil, you:)

[naomi24]

Jim, yes, I know. Not me guv.

[naomi24]

Theand, ultimately you're talking religion.

[sanmac]

2327 was naomi.

[jim360]

You clearly don't know, if you're busy pretending that the new rules -- which, in any case, were merely a clarification of what was already true --would have banned this post from being discussed. They manifestly did not -- they manifestly do not. It stems from a misunderstanding, one that's fairly basic and, indeed, fairly easy to address.

[naomi24]

sanmac, I dressed up as a little devil once for a fancy dress party. Such fun - and great costume!!!! :o)

[sanmac]

Can you prove that with any kind of substantial, unbiased, and irrefutable evidence?

[Old_Geezer]

New theories continually emerge but the scientific consensus is going to be most likely the closest to being right at any instant. Established theories don't tend to get dismissed that quickly.

[jim360]

Even the thread title is misleading. Scientists have discarded one theory in favour of another, but that's because evidence has emerged that has decisively, and objectively, shown that one is a better description of the available evidence. The part that remains constant is the requirement for objective evidence, the method. On *that* there has been no changing of minds. It's not a question of ego, or of hubris. The new evidence instantly refines and redefines the subject because that is how it is supposed to work.

In as much as there was any change in policy, it was merely that posts in the Science category should be more mindful of *how* an opinion is reached, and to stop promoting a false equivalence between theories with objective evidence and opinions without.

[naomi24]

sanmac, I'd post a picture .... but .. ;o)

[sanmac]

Well, naomi, must as it displeases me, I have no other choice than to recommend to the Science section prefect that your posts, and even the op be marked, forthwith, as being removed.

[Peter Pedant]

oh god we arent going to have a vote on whether one plus one equals two are we?

AB in night mode -

// Current scientific thinking is often short lived.//

some one looks up from their cornflakes and mutters - what utter nonsense !

I was refecting on how a lot of scientific theory is thought too complicated to teach to skool kids

Mobius, vectors - 1860
Clerk maxwells unification of electric and magnetic theory ( 1854 )
quantum theory 1870

No one says of Dickens Trollops or Tennyson
well try reading it but you really wont understand until you are a psot grad.....

I should include Darwin - last year 54% of Abers polled thought he was the one who tried to marry Lots wife in genesis, or might have been one of the daughters of Job

[naomi24]

Pp, leave the cornflakes packets alone. They’re doing you no good.