ANSWERS: 6
  • The idea that the continents were, and always had been, fixed in the same place. Since no mechanism for moving continents was known, the idea was regarded as crazy despite quite a lot of evidence for it. Then ocean floor spreading was discovered, and over about ten years the consensus completely reversed and plate-tectonics, with moving continents, became the new dogma.
  • The earth is flat. The sun is the center of the universe. Creationism. Early rulers were gods or descendants from gods (that is still suspected in this country). Women are less capable than men. Men are smarter than women. Politicians are honest. Bankers are honest. Governments serve the best interests of the people. Religions seek only to honor all people. God is good. God is bad.
  • Various models of the atom were proven to be wrong. Of course science is constantly changing as we learn more. That is why it is so amazing. Science is basically immune from preconceived notions.
  • "In a standard application of the psychological principle of confirmation bias, scientific research which supports the existing scientific consensus is usually more favorably received than research which contradicts the existing consensus. In some cases, those who question the current paradigm are at times heavily criticized for their assessments. Research which questions a well supported scientific theory is usually more closely scrutinized in order to assess whether it is well researched and carefully documented. This caution and careful scrutiny is used to ensure that science is protected from a premature divergence away from ideas supported by extensive research and toward new ideas which have yet to stand the testing by extensive research. However, this often results in conflict between the supporters of new ideas and supporters of more dominant ideas, both in cases where the new idea is later accepted and in cases where it is later abandoned. Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions discussed this problem in detail. Several examples of new concepts gaining acceptance when supported by accumulating evidence are present in the relatively recent history of science. For example: - the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection. - the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted. - the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory. - the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence. - the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren however it was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers, subsequently curing himself with antibiotic medication. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori For every new idea that has gained acceptance, there are far more examples of new ideas that were shown to be wrong. Two of the classics are N rays and polywater. However, most new ideas that have gained consesus were shown to be correct. This is because new ideas are typically being put forth by an individual and acceptance involves a great many individuals verifiying and/or duplicating scientific results." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
  • This is probably the most notorious:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man What is notable about it is that although many scientists at the time correctly claimed that it was a forgery, it took some 40 years for the scientific community to concede that it was. Not science's finest hour, although it should be remembered that it all took place 100 years ago, when perhaps scientific rigor was not as strong as it is today.
  • N-rays. Cold Fusion. Lammarckian evolution. Science is open to new ideas. Thus science is open to being flawed. If you've got the evidence, present it. If you're right, then it will come out. There is nothing 'scientific' concerning Creationism nor is there anything scientific concerning anti-global warming. Just opinions. All available climatological evidence points towards a warming trend.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy