Evolution of Knowledge. Scientists unite!

[theikon]

I've been doing some reading recently about ideas that have changed over time, and it is really interesting!

One of the things that I found really neat is how the Greek's used to believe in the theory of spontaneous generation of insects. This idea was widely accepted for centuries. Insects and other lower organisms were thought to be spontaneously generated by rotting mean and other non-living matter. The view was logical in context of the theory: no satisfactory theories existed about where life came from, apart from calling it a divine miracle. Insect eggs are small, and could not be seen in the rotting meats. Insects seemed small and uncomplicated, and it was conceivable that such a simple organism could be spontaneously generated.

Ultimately, through experiments by Redi and then Pasteur which showed that meat does not spontaneously generate life, but rather insects lay eggs upon it. With convincing evidence opposing the theory it lost its general acceptance.

Can you guys think of any other 'evolutions in knowledge?'

Happy New Year!

[Ozy_Flame]

Cats do not have nine lives, contrary to popular belief. We have slowly come to accept that.

[Rathji]

Not to discount this thread, but the entire premise of science is that our knowledge of things is not, and probably never will be, complete. The understanding that everything we think we know today, is probably wrong or incomplete in some way is what drives people to try and learn more.

The one thing that I think is a glaring example of how fairly 'modern' science was wrong for a long time was the science of eugenics. The interesting part to me is that while science only supported it for the early part of the 20th century, based mostly on faked studies, government programs based on eugenics principles extended into the 70's and beyond.

One glaring example, that would hit close to home, is the sterilization procedures performed without consent against mentally handicapped people in Alberta until 1972.

[drewboy12]

The earth is the middle of the solar system. Oh and its completely flat.

[Traditional_Ale]

Using Mercury to cure infections.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Using Mercury to cure infections.

They also used mercury to try to cure VD, they figure that Ivan the Terrible went insane after being treated with mercury for contracting the Syph.

[onetwo_threefour]

How about everything? Has our understanding of nature not evolved in every conceivable fashion?

Steady state ---> Expanding Universe ---> Big Bang ---> Inflationary Universe

Earth, Fire, Air, Water, Phlogiston ---> Periodic Table of the Elements

Gravity as the 'desire' of an object to approach it's most perfect natural state ---> Newtonian Gravity ---> General Relativity ---> Supergravity? ---> M-Theory??? ---> ?????

Evil spirits cause disease ---> Germ Theory
(on a related note - Leprosy = curse from God curable only by miracle ---> condition curable w/ antibiotics)

Man created a few thousand years ago ---> Evolution over hundreds of millions of years

It goes on and on...

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by Rathji

One glaring example, that would hit close to home, is the sterilization procedures performed without consent against mentally handicapped people in Alberta until 1972.

you're right.... edmonton is still well populated

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by theikon

I've been doing some reading recently about ideas that have changed over time, and it is really interesting!

One of the things that I found really neat is how the Greek's used to believe in the theory of spontaneous generation of insects. This idea was widely accepted for centuries. Insects and other lower organisms were thought to be spontaneously generated by rotting mean and other non-living matter. The view was logical in context of the theory: no satisfactory theories existed about where life came from, apart from calling it a divine miracle. Insect eggs are small, and could not be seen in the rotting meats. Insects seemed small and uncomplicated, and it was conceivable that such a simple organism could be spontaneously generated.

Ultimately, through experiments by Redi and then Pasteur which showed that meat does not spontaneously generate life, but rather insects lay eggs upon it. With convincing evidence opposing the theory it lost its general acceptance.

Can you guys think of any other 'evolutions in knowledge?'

Happy New Year!

I believe that the Greeks also figured that light emanated from the eyes, and that was how we illuminated objects and were able to see them. They got as far as figuring that light travelled infinitely fast, since you could see distant stars as soon as you opened your eyes at night, and that light travelled in straight lines.

Not bad considering..

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

If you're really interested in how science has evolved, and our view of the world has changed I'd like to recomend a book by Bill Bryson called "A Short History of Neary Everything".

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Not to discount this thread, but the entire premise of science is that our knowledge of things is not, and probably never will be, complete. The understanding that everything we think we know today, is probably wrong or incomplete in some way is what drives people to try and learn more.

The one thing that I think is a glaring example of how fairly 'modern' science was wrong for a long time was the science of eugenics. The interesting part to me is that while science only supported it for the early part of the 20th century, based mostly on faked studies, government programs based on eugenics principles extended into the 70's and beyond.

One glaring example, that would hit close to home, is the sterilization procedures performed without consent against mentally handicapped people in Alberta until 1972.

I agree. We believe what scientists know up to today only. It may be completely wrong or only partially right.

People believed for the longest time that the earth was flat. I wonder what we believe today that is completely wrong.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I agree. We believe what scientists know up to today only. It may be completely wrong or only partially right.

People believed for the longest time that the earth was flat. I wonder what we believe today that is completely wrong.

Probably so many things that your mind would blown if you found out just a tiny fraction of it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

People believed for the longest time that the earth was flat. I wonder what we believe today that is completely wrong.

You should read the relativity of right link that I linked to you in the other thread.

As long as there's some scientific support for a theory, it'll never be completely wrong, just inaccurate (though possibly wildly inaccurate).

Even the earth being flat, it IS flat on a small enough scale within certain error bars.

We know it is round if you increase the scale, but on at some scales for some things, you can treat the earth as if it is flat. You don't need to account for the curve of the earth if you are building a house.

[onetwo_threefour]

^ Yeah, Hawking and Mlodinow have an interesting discussion of model-dependant realsim in The Grand Design (just finsihed reading it) Their position is to assert that there is truth to any model as long as it agrees with observations. Kind of like what you're saying about the flat earth. On a small scale a flat earth model is useful because you can navigate on ordinary scales of speed (walking, running, driving) without worrying too much about the curvature of the earth. Of course if you want to use your GPS then you'll have to adapt your model because a flate earth model would cause massive errors in GPS. (They made a different argument about GPS and errors but I'm just making a similar example)

It was an interesting discussion that seemed quite apropos to this thread.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

People believed for the longest time that the earth was flat. I wonder what we believe today that is completely wrong.

Man never landed on the moon.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

People believed for the longest time that the earth was flat. I wonder what we believe today that is completely wrong.

How they really get the caramel into a Caramilk Bar.

[octothorp]

I've wondered how many scientists prior to Pythagoras had actually seriously asked the question, 'what shape is the earth?' Were there earlier scientists who actually conducted experiments and arrived at the conclusion that the earth is flat?
If not, then you can't actually say that scientists prior to Pythagoras were wrong about the shape of the earth, simply that they hadn't asked that question in a scientific way.

I've always been fascinated by the history of maps and how ver wrong information makes it into maps, gets taken out, and gets put back in decades or even centuries later. California as an island, and a mythical arctic sea with a mountain at the north pole being two famous examples of this. Cartographers aren't exactly scientists in the strictest sense, but the similarity is that they make their own discrete discoveries and then attempt to show how that discovery fits into the larger base of knowledge, and in doing so they perpetuate ideas that have not been properly verified.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

On a small scale a flat earth model is useful because you can navigate on ordinary scales of speed (walking, running, driving) without worrying too much about the curvature of the earth.

It's also quite helpful for walking, running, driving to not have to worry that atoms of matter are mostly empty space - it would suck to continually fall through the earth, or have the earth end up embedded in the mostly empty spaces in the atoms comprising your body.

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I've wondered how many scientists prior to Pythagoras had actually seriously asked the question, 'what shape is the earth?' Were there earlier scientists who actually conducted experiments and arrived at the conclusion that the earth is flat?
If not, then you can't actually say that scientists prior to Pythagoras were wrong about the shape of the earth, simply that they hadn't asked that question in a scientific way.

I think you're thinking of Eratosthenes, not Pythogras. From what I've read about Eratosthenes, it was known at the time that the earth was curved, but he was the first to (quite accurately) calculate the diameter, tilt, and distance from the sun. Simple observations of ships coming into land probably clued ancient people into the general shape of the land.

Originally Posted by octothorp

I've always been fascinated by the history of maps and how ver wrong information makes it into maps, gets taken out, and gets put back in decades or even centuries later. California as an island, and a mythical arctic sea with a mountain at the north pole being two famous examples of this. Cartographers aren't exactly scientists in the strictest sense, but the similarity is that they make their own discrete discoveries and then attempt to show how that discovery fits into the larger base of knowledge, and in doing so they perpetuate ideas that have not been properly verified.

One bit problem with historic cartography is that the mapmakers were rarely the ones doing the observations, they were relying on other people's maps and reports, and many explorers were notorious liars. I just got a reproduction of Lewis & Clark's official map after their expedition, and it is amazingly accurate where they actually went, not so much in areas where they were compiling other people's data.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If you're really interested in how science has evolved, and our view of the world has changed I'd like to recomend a book by Bill Bryson called "A Short History of Neary Everything".

Quoting for truth, I picked it up over Christmas and am about half way through. Does a great job of explaining some complicated concepts so the average person can at least start to understand them.