Science fills us all with great wonder and it has done so for generations, but there have been an incredible number of “scientific discoveries” which were later found to be completely false. This list looks at ten of the more fascinating cases of scientific falsehoods from history.
“Rain Follows the Plow” is the name given to a climatology concept which is now completely debunked. The theory said that human settlement caused a permanent increase in rainfall – thus enabling man to move to areas previously considered arid. It is this 19th century theory that brought about the settlement of the Great Plains (previously known as the Great American Desert), and parts of South Australia. The theory was eventually refuted by climatologists, and in the settled areas of South Australia, drought brought an end to the attempted settlements.
This strange theory has a relatively normal name, but rest assured, the concept is far from it. Hans Hörbiger (pictured above), an Austrian engineer and inventor received a vision in 1894 which told him that ice was the substance of all basic substances and had created the ice moons, ice planets, and a “global ether”. He said “I knew that Newton had been wrong and that the sun’s gravitational pull ceases to exist at three times the distance of Neptune[.]” Unbelievably this theory got a great deal of support. One of the strongest supporters of the concept was Houston Stewart Chamberlain (British born posthumous son-in-law of composer Richard Wagner) who went on to become one of the leading theorists behind the development of the Nazi Party in Germany.
Alchemy has its roots (in the Western world) in Ancient Egypt where it combined with metallurgy in a form of early science. The Egyptian alchemists discovered the formulas for making mortar, glass, and cosmetics. From Egypt it eventually spread to the rest of the Ancient world and led to modern alchemy in which men would try to turn metals into gold, to conjure up genies, and perform all manner of bizarre not-so-science-like activities. While it has contributed in some ways to modern science, the discipline of true science caused the death of alchemy which could not stand up to the rigorous testing of its pseudoscience.
From the 16th century, European experts in geography were convinced that California was an island separate from the North American mainland. Maps of the time show a large island on the left of the land mass and California continued to appear this way even into the 18th century. There was at the time also a rumor that California was an earthly paradise like the Garden of Eden or Atlantis. A romance novel from 1510 describes it thus:
Know, that on the right hand of the Indies there is an island called California very close to the side of the Terrestrial Paradise; and it is peopled by black women, without any man among them, for they live in the manner of Amazons. – Las Sergas de Esplandián by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo
The matter was finally put to rest indisputably on the 1774-1776 expeditions of Juan Bautista de Anza. Interestingly, it is likely that within 25 million years, Baja California and part of Southern California really will separate from North America due to tectonic plate movement.
Geocentricity is the concept which states that the earth is the center of the Universe and that all other objects move around it. The view was universally embraced in Ancient Greece and very similar ideas were held in Ancient China. The idea was supported by the fact that the sun, stars, and planets appear to revolve around Earth, and the physical perception that the Earth is stable and not moving. This was combined with the belief that the earth was a sphere; belief in a flat earth was well gone by the 3rd century BC. The geocentric model was eventually displaced with the work of of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler in the 16th Century.
In classical antiquity right up to modern times, it was believed that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. It was believed that the right balance of these four humors made a person healthy but an excess or decrease in any one of these would cause illness. Because of this belief, treatments of sickness would include bloodletting, purges, and emetics. Occasionally a mixture of herbs would be used to restore the balance. The humors were also applied to foods – for example wine was choleric (yellow bile). This classification still exists today to some extent, as we refer to some foods as “hot” and others as “dry”. The concept of humors was not replaced until 1858 when Rudolf Virchow published theories of cellular pathology.
Vitalism states that the functions of living things are controlled by a “vital force” and not biophysical means. Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies – and it has ties to the four humors. It is sometimes referred to as a “life spark” and even as the soul. In the Eastern traditions it is essentially the same thing as “qi” or “chi”, which is heavily tied in to oriental medicinal methods. The concept is (as can be expected) completely rejected by most mainstream scientists. In 1967, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated “And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”
Maternal Impression is an old belief that a mother’s thoughts while pregnant can impart special characteristics on the child in her womb. For many years this idea was used to explain congenital disorders and birth defects. Maternal Impression was used to explain the disorder suffered by the Elephant Man: it was suggested that his mother was frightened by an elephant while she was pregnant with him – thereby imprinting the memory of an elephant on her child. Depression was also explained in this manner. If a mother had moments of strong sadness during pregnancy, it was believed that her child would ultimately suffer from depression in later life. Genetic theory caused the almost complete eradication of this belief in the 20th century.
The theory of phlogiston dates to 1667 when Johann Joachim Becher (a German physicist) suggested that there was a fifth element (phlogiston) to go with the four classical elements (Earth, Water, Air, Fire) which was contained within objects that could burn. It was believed that when an object burned, it released its phlogiston (an element without taste, mass, odor or color) and left behind a powdery substance called calx (what we now know to be oxide). Objects that burned in air were considered to be rich in phlogiston and the fact that a fire burned out when oxygen was removed was seen as proof that oxygen could only absorb a limited amount of the substance. This theory also led to the idea that the human need to breathe had a sole function which was to remove phlogiston from the body. The entire concept was superseded by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier’s discovery that combustion could only occur with the help of a gas such as oxygen.
Before microscopes and theories of cells and germs, man had other ideas about the creation of living things. He bizarrely believed that life arose from inanimate matter (for example, maggots come spontaneously from rotting meat). Proponents of this view (virtually everyone) used the Bible as a source of evidence, due to the fact that God made man from dust. However, the view did exist before Christianity and Aristotle said, in no uncertain terms, that some animals grow spontaneously and not from other animals of their kind. Earlier believers had to come up with some pretty strange ideas to make their theory work: Anaximander (a Greek philosopher who taught Pythagoras) believed that at some point in man’s history, humans had been born from the soil spontaneously in adult form, otherwise they could never have survived. Before we laugh too hard at the ancients, we should note that many Scientists right up to the 19th century believed this, and some even wrote recipe books for making animals. One such recipe (to make a scorpion) calls for basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight. The theory was not finally put to rest until 1859, when Louis Pasteur proved it wrong once and for all.
Contributor: JFrater
Dammit, dammit, dammit!
Within the last few days I’ve been considering starting a forum called “What is the all-time funniest comment on LU” (List UUUUniverse, please!), with special reference to tracking down the first ever use of the word “retarded”.
Now it looks like Cyn’s idea!
Not fair!!!! Just because I’m on holidays and have spent most of the days sleeping and most of the nights not sleeping because I spend most of the days sleeping and my brain’s not working.
astraya,
I’ll back up what lo said to the hilt, which is probably the second nicest thing anyone has ever said to you. Hahaha.
What more could I add to your crisp explanation? Except perhaps the suggestion that we might call all these examples historic science or proto-science. Although I’m not in fact convinced that the concept of science through the ages can in a prqactical sense be narrowly defined by modern scientific practice.
On that blithe assumption, I’m going to launch my own favourite debunked pseudo-scientific belief of the past (although some might quibble it’s medical). I also have to confess it’s shaped by religion, but much early so-called science is inseparable from religion anyway. Ladies and gentlemen,I give you The Doctrine of Signatures.
The D of S considers features of (mostly) plants which look like some part of the human body, or a disease symptom, or bear some resemblance to a human function. The assumption was that God had shaped them to indicate what medical use we should put them to. Many such plants bear common and Latin names denoting the supposed use. Pulmonaria or lungwort has white spots, said at the time to suggest lung complaints, which it was recommended to cure. Liverwort, toothwort and pilewort were similarly named. The walnut was included for its obvious resemblance to the brain. A plant which oozed yellow sap was tied to jaundice.
Of course none of this has foundation, but some plants, by bizarre coincidence, actually do their intended trick. Aristolochia is known as birthwort. According to some this is because it resembles a curled-up foetus. Others remark on the apparent resemblance to the female pudendum of some species. Remarkably, it was used quite independently by North American Indians for the same purpose. By chance, a conconcotion of the plant has abortive properties. In low dilutions this eases birth. Higher strength does indeed result in abortion and enough guarantees to kill. It was frequently grown in monasteries and is rumoured to have been ‘made available’ to hapless, amd presumably sometimes late, nuns. Very Chaucerian.
So throw away your viagra, make a brew of stinkhorn, hold your nose and quaff, ye merry fellows.
goddamnit! see, i am tired. so tired in fact i forgot to mention i was inspired by the brilliance of the one we call..w/ quiet reverence…astraya…re: this LV-centric list/forum/whateverthe*****-it-will-be-just-someone-hurry up & post it.. somewhere.
but do we want an all under one roof kinda deal or do w/ want to seperate it out by quote, neologisms and/or dream/fantasy sequence (wonder if that came w/ voice over from our Lord JFrater?) *giggle*
on mainsite? @ forums? ebook? novelty toilet paper? whaaaat?
bucslim, (120),
“Cyn, you have my leave to steal anything that comes from my walnut sized hamster brain.”
Sir, how dare you steal my post 123, para 4, ll, 6/7 before I’d even submitted it!
I’ve just started a forum in General Discussion called “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe”. It’s at http://listverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1508
Anon: “I’ll back up what lo said to the hilt”. It’s too soon after the “bizarre deaths” list. Unfortunately your kindly-meant comment made me think about the man who got a pikestaff up the place near his coccyx.
“we might call all these examples historic science or proto-science”
It’s easy and tempting to apply 21st-century ideas to people from earlier centuries. Nowadays we make smaller and smaller pigeon-holes to categorise people in. Nowadays “scientist” and “philosopher” are quite distinct, and it would be a brave person to claim to be both. The men [sic] on this list weren’t “scientists” in the 21st century sense, though they may have been in Jamie’s broader “knowledge in the general sense” sense. They weren’t “philosophers” in the 21st century sense, though they were “lovers of wisdom” in the original meaning of the word.
Hooray for your comments on climate change. It’s easy to (metaphorically) shoot Al Gore, who (undoubtedly) is getting richer and famouser out of this, but what about the 1000s of perfectly ordinary men and women who have devoted decades of their lives, on a university salary and the occasional journal article? They aren’t in it for the money or fame.
Anon: Not just plants. Someone decided that rhinoceros horns were an aphrodisiac, based on their shape.
Which of the 10 would you really describe as Scientific beliefs? Some but not all would fit with our ‘modern’ understanding of term ‘scientific’, especially as the term ‘theory’ is scattered generously throughout the list.
I see people can’t keep politics out of threads. Instead of blaming Gore for global warming fears is as ridicolous as pointing out that earth warmed up after 4th glaciation.
Please 1) keep this debate out of this thread 2) do a little SERIOUS research about it. Debunkers of global warmings are NOT climathologists. They may be scientists, but they all of those who are REALLY studying climate today agree about it.
So what’s the difference between Spontaneous Generation and Evolution?
Both are the exact same thing. It’s just that one happens fast and the other happens slowly.
But both seem just as stupid. Look for Evolution to be on this list in one hundred years.
What about flat earth?
astraya – it’s a fairly simple task. Just gather up each instance where I post something and quite soon you’ll have a rip-roaring, pant-peeing list of grabassery and jocularity. Soda and milk will soon squirt out of your nose from the sheer weight of tomfoolery and hee-haws I’ve inflicted on the posters.
i’d say that these are pretty understandable, considering that people then didn’t have the technology or knowledge to understand what we take as the real reasons for everything. anyway, cool list:D
130. smg45acp
“Look for Evolution to be on this list in one hundred years.”
Indeed, if climate change hasn’t claimed us by then, and the human brain fails to adapt and evolve sufficiently and sufficiently quickly – as it is showing very clear signs of (not) doing in various quarters of LV here and now.
buc, (i32),
It’s terribly, grossly, unfair, I know, but the LV general topic format confines examples to one per subject.
However, never fear, mon ami, there is also another LV specific format available 4 U that I will propose and second. The 10 Funniest bucslim Underwear Soakers. Followed by, A Second 10 FbUS. Followed by …
You big fan (or big fanny), Anon
I”m sorry to be all ‘off topic’ and all, but Anon just slayed me with that last post.
I’ll be good from here on out, I promise.
Sorry if this is a re post, but I didn’t see mine up there.
I’d like to put forth as a debunked scientific belief…racism. Until very recently, it was an accepted fact among mainstream intellectuals that humanity could be neatly divided into categories based on shared inherited physical traits like skin color and facial features, and that with these physical differences came various aptitudes. These days, almost all racists are of the blind hatred, ignorant fear, or general annoyance variety. As far as I know, no actual scientists currently believe in or study human “races” at all.
I wanted to see the c*****s of Mars on here! I really wanted to hear about them….
robneiderman, (137),
I believe the most successful debunker ever of ‘scientific’ racism was a gentleman called, er … what was the name now? .. Aldoff Hirtler? What was it: the beautiful, blonde, perfectly physiqued, brainy Master race? When all the top Nazi élite were an an ugly, gross, stunted or physically unattractive bunch of bastards, with very few exceptions:
Hitler, he only had one ball.
Göring, his tool was very small.
Himmler, had something sim’lar,
and poor old Goballs had no balls at all!
(To be sung to the ‘Bridge over the River Kwai’ anthem.)
Then of course, we had the enthusiastic, exalted miltary and politcal rank and file of the Master Race. Those thick as pig ***** Nazi thugs. Their exalted world-smashing intelligence consisted of surrendering their will and capacity for independent thought (I’m generously assuming they had any to begin with) unquestioningly to one homicidal, genocidal lunatic. There is another social group that does that. We call them ants.
Oh, and a German-born (non-Jewish) doctor friend in the US, whose parents fled the Nazis in time, once told me much of the original brilliant scientific work done by Jews in Germany in the German language was re-written by the Nazis in the name of fictitious or near-anonymous ‘true’ Aryans.
Take a note that american propaganda might have (and probably did) lied about the masculinity of the leaders of the axis, as a way to diminish their imposing figure.
Well kids, come to find out, temperature extremes on earth actually surpass those of Hell! Yes, it’s true! Everyone I talk to during the summer says it’s hotter than hell when the temperatures reach the mid to upper 90′s. The very same people say it’s colder than hell when the temperatures drop below about 10 degrees (yah, I’m using Fahrenheit) above zero. Therfore, Hell actually has a rather temperate climate, and is probably not too bad a place to hang out if you hate temperature extremes.
Oh, and I got it on good authority that the theory of relativity is nothing more than an excuse to drink beer and eat fried chicken and tater salad. Well, at least that’s what all my cousins tell me at family reunions.
But seriously, it’s almost 60 degrees here today, just south of the 49th parallel… and yes, it’s the middle of winter.
It all depends on which circle of hell you are talking about. The inner circle is said to be really cold, while the outer circles are in flames.
By the swastikas of the great Horse Vessel, I can’t get that wretched Nazi pudenda song out of my head now!
Just want to point out that CH4 (Methane) and NO (Nitrous Oxide) are several times more potent as greenhouse gases than CO2. As for Breathing…plants easily offset the balance caused by humans breathing out. What we need to sort is Cows and Sheeps burping (yes burping not farting) and our burning of dirtier fossil fuels.
Insert one-way baffle valves, and then stand back and pray!
“smg45acp
So what’s the difference between Spontaneous Generation and Evolution?
Both are the exact same thing. It’s just that one happens fast and the other happens slowly.
But both seem just as stupid. Look for Evolution to be on this list in one hundred years.”
Unbelievable. Do yourself a favour and look up the word “evolution” in the dictionary. After you do that, maybe you can comment on it without making yourself sound like an idiot. I’m sure to someone who has no grasp on the concept of evolution and who has obviously never sought out the mounds of evidence and observation that backs it up, it does seem stupid. Much like the idea of a spherical Earth would seem stupid to someone from the second century.
Pick up a figgin’ book!
Evolution is change over a period of time, any change. That time could be short or long. Biological evolution is biological and chemical change over time. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, which is what Spontaneous Generation suggests. A better comparison (but no less flawed) would be Spontaneous Generation with abiogenesis.
An example of how absurd your comparison is:
So what’s the difference between Spontaneous Generation and a tasty pepperoni pizza? Both are the exact same thing.
Can you see how ridiculous it is now?
Interesting list. I thought of phrenology also.
Makes you wonder what theories we’re not sure about now that will be debunked in the future when we have more advanced technologies or more information.
I think the “debunking” period is likely over. Most of this list is comprised of theories that were accepted before the scientific method was in place. Truly before “science” was even a word.
All theories begin as hypothesis, are subject to the scientific method and do not become scientific theory without it. “Hypothesis” is something we can’t be sure of, scientific theory is something that we are sure of, but may not yet understand the full extent of. The theory of gravity is a good example.
If anything, the theories that we hold true today will only be expanded on and not dismissed altogether.
Folks, especially JFrater, we need to be careful with terminology. The word “Theory” is being used in many places where “hypothesis” would be the correct term.
A scientific Theory is a well researched explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A hypothesis is an often unsubstantiated conjecture which may, over time, become substantiated via observation and/or experimentation.
Theories contain hypotheses in various stages of substantiation or refutation. They are the fuel upon which science progresses but many are eventually demonstrated to be false.
Science discards refuted hypotheses. Religion engages in Apologetics to demonstrate why its dogma hasn’t really been refuted.
I love how the picture you used for “materal impression” is actually an impressionist style painting…of a maternal scene. hahaha!
Maternal Impression: When I was pregnant my mother would always try to cover my eyes if a disabled person was close by She really believed it would hurt the baby if I looked at that person.
Sir Issac Newton had as much interest in alchemy and theology as he did in science and wrote about both subjects extensively
Cyn, astraya, Anon: During the 5 years I worked in the film lab in Hollywood, I kept what I (and eventually everyone) came to call “Quote of the Day”. At first it was kept on tape on a bulletin board, then went into a steno pad (which I still have…5 years worth of daily quotes!).
Point is, astraya, it is easy enough to cull that single quote every day. *If you do it every day*. Start skipping days and you are surely lost.
None of those were ever scientific theories. They were just beliefs, not “scientific” beliefs. Good job contributing to the general population’s ignorance of what science is. You just helped people get a little stupider. Congratulations.
I think he’s got ya on the use of “scientic”
“Science…unrestrained peer review.”
global warming? every ***** with a BS degree is calling themselves a “scientist”
peer review – not while The Gores and the “research” grant vampires are getting paid
forget it
126. astraya: I’ve just started a forum in General Discussion called “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe”. It’s at http://listverse.com/forums/vi…..amp;t=1508
****
What gives?
I just went there and it said no such place exists.
UmmmmNo, as long as you are happy being a hypocrite then I’ll leave you to it, just don’t expect to be celebrated as wise in any way. You’re not. Careless people spouting off at the mouth should be left in the “dark ages”, don’t you think? Anyway, my offer still stands please get back to me with the answers to the universe’s greatest mysteries, I am very curious, and since you’re the man with the plan, no one else will do.
I remember this one time that a tasty pepperoni pizza spontaneously generated in the hands of this guy who knocked on our front door! Amazing… and just when I was thinking how nice it would be to have pizza!
JayArr ~ Amazing! The same thing happens to me, but it’s Chinese dudes with egg drop soup and sweet and sour shrimp. Yarm.
Rushfan – Woohoo!!! Now for the money fountain in my living room… [think think think] **taps forehead**
TEX, (152),
“global warming? every ***** with a BS degree is calling themselves a “scientist”
peer review – not while The Gores and the “research” grant vampires are getting paid
forget it”
No one needs a BSc or peer reviews to see and understand a penny drop (= gravity).
or not to see a penny drop (= inability to put two and two together).
Nobody needs a BSc or peer review to see the scads of images of land and sea ice melting and falling apart. Or not to draw strong likely conclusions from it.
Or do we need independent peer reviews to prove they aren’t all digitally manipulated by Al Gore and his sinister global network, who are now in complete charge of all the world’s media (and without doubt the UN and the Obama administration)? Send for 007.
Holy crap, “disgruntled goat!” what a great Simpsons reference. I preferred clu clux clam…haha well done goat
I once woke up to find that French fries had spontaneously appeared in my shoes!
Later on some current synapses managed to reconnect with some others I was using the day before and a gossamer memory of stopping at Jack-intha-Crack after the bar the night before came to me.
Sadly no theory can be proven as to how the fries got in my shoes – the only chance is to try and reproduce the effect!
Anon – I am not denying natural global climate change, cooling included, just questioning manmade warming. Now if you are getting your information from any of the news media outlets, exercise caution when they use the term “scientist”. I started zeroing in on this use a long time ago.
If the source does not tell you what the “scientists” discipline is – then it needs to be questioned thoroughly.
For instance, they commonly quote meteorologists – these guys are not qualified one iota to make a technical statement on global climate, it is not their field.
Any research that is done by an individual or a department relying on funding for livelihood has a terrific conflict of interest.
As an experiment try a search for climatologists that disagree with manmade global warming – you might be surprised what you find.
Everyone else that might be interested – start here (if it will come up) – http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/108062/detail/
Warning: it is the BBC
Sorry for the followibng serious science vs proto-science vs pre-science vs folk-law observation.
It perhaps makes best sense to regard all those as a seamless evolution. Before peer reviewing and repetition by experimentation were formalised, intelligent people were using equivalent unconscious versions of these all the time. In other words, as long as something worked or made sense in the light of new incoming data, it tended to be retained. Otherwise it would be modified or replaced, especially by those who became specialists.
Astronomy and botany provide good examples of this. Both were important as they provided aids for navigation, and food and medicines, inter alia, respectively. Lack of knowledge of the plant world could also kill (poisons). Practical identification (taxonomy) therefore became a very early and important human skill. It later developed into the total sytematic taxonomy we have nowadays, with all its computerised sophistication.
The pivot for that process was the great Linnaeus. No one could deny that he, like Newton, was one of the greatest scientists ever to live. But he retained many quaint charateristics from the past, including his ‘rude’ system of *****ual classification! He also incorporated into our present binomial system (his major contribution to science) all relevant previous knowledge. That included Latin plant-names whose folk origins predated Greek civilisation, and native plant names from exotic lands. Before Linnaeus botany had gone through such semi-formalised phases as the observations and first recorded identifications of the Greek pholosophers, The Doctrine of Signatures and herbalism, which is still alive and well in our civlisation today as homeopathy. Linnaeus believed without question that every species was independently created and placed in its present ecosytem by God. Then came Darwin …
i wish i had the problem of pepperoni pizzas spontaneously generating near me. i generally have the opposite problem. they retreat from view and the only evidence is a couple of greasy finger prints on my glass and some gaseous reminders a little while later.
skydiver: i asked this question twice on the evolution in modern man list and was never answered so i’ll ask you directly… is it possible for someone to have an alternate theory to macro-evolution and be intellectually responsible?
Anon -
“By the swastikas of the great Horse Vessel, I can’t get that wretched Nazi pudenda song out of my head now!”
Not sure what that all means, but you’ve got to calm yourself with some Andy Gibb or Starland Vocal Band. (here’s hoping you know what that is)
Silly “scientists” of old. I wonder if in 30 or 40 years, there will be a similar list making fun of our “modern-day” scientific achievements and beliefs.
They will laugh at us from their flying cars! Haha
“… Al Gore and his sinister global network, who are now in complete charge of all the world’s media (and without doubt the UN and the Obama administration)?”
The UN? someone’s in control – proove it
Obama administration – been in existence what? About 1 day. Way too early to tell, unless you’re psychic.
TEX, (161),
Agreed. I don’t think anything you’ve just written is denied either explicitly or implicitly by any of my earlier observations. Quite the reverse. I’ve tried to be very careful to stress we should only take note of those who have spent sufficient career time on the subject, published enough papers on the subject, and are sufficiently highly regarded by their peers to carry weight.
Two things particularly anger me though. It’s Al Gore this, Al Gore that, Al Gore the other. One way traffic. When have we heard anything about the ‘benign and innocent’ lobby of some of the richest global corporations in the world offering juicy grants to any sparse-bearded BScs who will publish whatever little scrap of so-called research that casts doubt on human-based climate change? And put their silent weight behind any kind of Al Gore discrediting campaign? Not to mention the supporting cast of interested religious organisations? Has it ever occurred to you and the total ‘no noes’ that there are far richer and more powerful organisations whose financial interests could be seriously damaged if avoidable climate change were accepted?
My other boiling-point is the total cocky assurance of the ‘no noes’. Science only becomes totally assured in order not make a fool of itself. I.e. “Piltdown Man was a hoax.” Even then it often leaves a cautious door open. “No, unicorns don’t exist. Until someone provides one, that is. And original reports might have derived from narwhals.” So, as for anyone who questions inexperienced BScs, but believes people off the street when they shout “No” …
Natural or man-made? Account for the fastest ice-melt in climatological history as a proven natural phenomenon, or at least provide a strong hypothesis to account for it, and you can start to talk with authority.
I see enough evidence to convince me pretty strongly man-made change is the most likely cause: ice melt rate; the perfect tie-in of various new climatological phenomena with the growth of the industrial era; my personal awareness of plant reactions to ecological change, plus plenty more I’ve read in specialised and authoritative literature. However, that doesn’t mean I mustn’t remain open-minded to equally powerful contrary evidence of high quality if and when it arrives, which it hasn’t yet … unlike those who take the opposite view to mine. How many ‘no noes’ posting here actually work at a scientific discipline?
Damn, it should have been ‘henny’ to keep me out of moderation. I’ll never get the hang of this system.
buc, (164),
“Hitler, he only had one …” Arrrrgh, you’re right, squire. Only the valium is within immediate grabbing range though.
segue: the forum exists and is rocking along nicely, so there’s something wrong with the link. Rather that re-post the link, I’ll give instructions. At the top of the page, click “Forums”. Then in the second main block (titled “Community”) click “General discussion”. Hopefully, “What is the all-time funniest comment …” should be somewhere near the top (because that means someone’s posted to it recently). Click on that.
DiscHuker #163
It’s possible to have an alternate theory to any theory. But for it to be accepted as plausible and an actual “scientific theory” it has to pass through the scientific method. Until it does, it is merely hypothesis and that’s granting it a title more deserving than the more fitting “opinion”.
In my humble opinion, whether or not it’s intellectually responsible to have an alternate theory depends on how strongly a person believes that theory (still opinion), despite the evidence to the contrary.
For instance: if scientific evidence tells us that clouds are water vapour, and my alternate theory is that they are made of yummy cotton candy, that’s my opinion. Is that irresponsible? Probably not, it’s just my opinion -it’s twisted and illogical- but still my opinion. However, if I preach it, back it with ancient writings from unknown and/or ambiguous sources, convince a group of people or worse yet, a young generation of kids that clouds are made of yummy cotton candy, to me, that would be intellectually -not to mention morally- irresponsible.
Micro & Macro-evolution are outdated terms that are often incorrectly used by Creationists who are somewhat on the fence, as a weapon against evolution. They are OK with what they consider Micro-evolution, but still revert back to their faith when they consider Macro-evolution and dismiss it as fallacy, when really, they are one and the same -Evolution-. The prefix Micro and Macro have all but been discarded by scientists describing evolution, except when using them for descriptive reasons, ie., large vs. small change. But theists use the terms incorrectly for ontological reasons, as if there were a fundamental difference between the two. It seems to be some thread of hope for theists to cling to, for fear of falling off that fence.
I think the responsible thing to do would be to let go of theological beliefs and faith when dealing with the evidence presented. Go in without any preconceived conclusions, look at the evidence, study it, understand it and then decide which makes the most sense. If you still believe in the scriptures description of the young Earth over old, Adam & Eve over evolution and the worldwide flood, then so be it. But trying to somehow ‘defeat’ science with that opinion or “alternate theory”, is foolhardy and frankly, not possible. Just as it would be impossible to try and defeat the theory that clouds are water vapour, with the yummy cotton candy theory.
Science has nothing to *prove*, only to improve upon itself and it will continue to flourish this way because we have the evidence, they don’t.
I am surprised to find myself defending religion on this thread because I see a lot of the problems people cause in the name of God, but, there hasnt been too much that I consider right. There is this assumption that there is no evidence of religious figures in the Judeo-Christian Bible–this is just not so. Bible historians have poured over primary documents and found that there is a striking consensus within these documents that someone named Jesus did exist. This is as much contextual as it is concrete but in looking at how much else the Bible has seemingly gotten right, it makes sense that the crux of the entire argument wouldn’t be a figment of fraud. Historians have found towns in places found in the Bible and have confirmed many of the cultural traditions of first century Christians and ancient Jews. Some of these texts show the urge for early people for whom science is unknown to explain their lives and world. This is obvious, but what is also as obvious is that these different texts written in different times and different areas are amazingly similar. Even stories like Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh (sp?) are very similar. The Adam and Eve story is not that illogical, geneticists have found that through portions of history all the survivors of the human race passed through what are known as bottle necks where a large portion, if not a majority, of genetic chains die out. Lets assume that we start with 100% of the genetic humans and pass through 4 genetic bottle necks which remove a conservative 25% of the chains that leaves us with 23.25% of the original portion remaining (as 3/4×100, 3/4×75 3/4×56, etc.). There is a strong probability that there have been more than 4 genetic bottle necks. What the Adam and Eve myth seeks to explain, whether they know it or not, is where we came from. It also unites the entire world in the same family thus making violence that much more inappropriate. I enjoy good scholarly discussions on topics like this and respect those who bring informed opinions regardless their conclusion. I do not, however, respect those like UmmmNo, or whatever his name is, who essentially add nothing to the discussion other than their preconceived notions– which are usually as self serving as the Ku Kux Klan’s beliefs, and the Taliban’s beliefs, and religious bigot’s of all faiths. I’ve already said it but there is nothing wrong with having beliefs of either persuasion what is unacceptable are people who think themselves so spot on that they are entitled to desecrate other’s beliefs. Like I said above, it is this urge which spawns terrorism, racism, fundamentalism such as the Taliban and intollerance in general. Saying there is no scientific evidence to back up religous texts is wrong and selectively scientific, saying that there is incontrovertible that figures like Jesus and Moses exists is also wrong. Alas though, Heinrich Schliemann found troy in the mid 19th century which had only been mentioned in the Homeric epics, so it shouldn’t be obvious that a story with so many independent sources which support a similar conclusion is fake. As John Lennon said it’s “whatever gets you through the night”.
Each time someone says something like “religion is the bane of all history” they make the same mistakes as someone who says “black people are less evolved than white people” or “pepsi is better than coke”.
Brosiusjb, (173),
Very well said. And your observations could to a similar degree be applied to those who say, “Man-made climate change doesn’t exist. I know.”
It’s a curious fact of the human intellect that very often the less people actually know, the more blithely assertive they can be. Unfortunately, that falsely opinionated tendency all too often carries the uncommitted along, in the short term at least.
great list. For those that don’t believe in global warming: there is a “paradise” called california, with any luck, you will become an island with it. And be sure the car has an egr valve..with a direct link to your brain.
Oh, cool. So, like, I’m gonna be living on a island someday? Won’t that be just too sweet? I already live right near the ocean, so it won’t be too different. I just won’t be able to drive to all those annoying states to the east of us where everybody thinks there’s all that anyway.
So boo hoo.
Anon:
I’ll row down to Chile as soon as I get a chance!
“So, like, I’m gonna be living on a island someday?”
Only if you prepared to wait for 25m years and put up with the earthquakes that are going to accompany California’s split from the rest of the continent. (Hmm, does that make California incontinent?)
“I’ll row down to Chile”
After California, you’ll find it chilly there.
(I’m bored. Have you noticed? Gotta do something…)
Brosiusjb #173
Your cassock is showing.
I’ve never implied that the figures in the bible did not exist (at least not ALL of them) but rather, most, if not all the stories contained in it.
I’m sorry, but exactly what has the bible gotten right? Most, if not all the stories have no evidence other than location (some of those are questionable) to validate them. We’re told to trust their occurrence on faith, yet the stories that *are* dismissed by armchair theists and deists alike are, we are told, to be taken allegorically. How are we to decipher which to take literally and which to take allegorically? I’ve read the bible and have yet to find any instructions for that minor conundrum. Moreover, cultural traditions can be found in various other ancient texts that aren’t considered the word of god, the inclusion of them in the bible hardly adds credence to any of the other more dubious stories contained in its pages.
Similarities in the bible also don’t validate the claims. It’s understandable that the stories will mimic one another. The printed word was very rare 2 and 3 thousand years ago, books simply weren’t available. Stories were told and re-told and it’s likely that many of the similarities you’re speaking of are in actuality, the same story told a different way.
I can assure you that any accredited geneticist who has done research on anything pertaining to heredity, cell biology or molecular genetics, certainly wouldn’t entertain the idea of creationism being any part of it. It’s unfair to try and validate a claim in scriptures by mentioning it as somehow being connected with an actual evolutionary event like Genetic Bottleneck. Even Creationists don’t bring this theory up as evidence when the data shows that the common matriarchal ancestor in this theory probably lived some 140 to 150 thousand years ago and the last human genetic bottleneck may have occurred some 70 thousand years ago. This doesn’t bode well for a theory that claims the Earth to be only 6,500 years old. Regardless, Genetic Bottleneck occurs far more frequently, and has been observed, in plants and animals. If you’d like elaboration on it as far as humans are concerned, I suggest you get a copy of Richard Dawkins – The Ancestor’s Tale. I can assure you that other than the odd folksy reference, or pertaining to their scientific tagging, Adam and Eve aren’t mentioned as a possible connection.
To suggest that because we may all be relatives through some type of Adam & Eve (not to be confused with Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam), it makes violence “that much more inappropriate”, is unfair and reeks of a childhood Sunday school lesson. Violence is inappropriate – period. Trying to propagate this fact with a thinly veiled theological lesson on how the bible gives us our morality is an obvious theist game. I have no belief in god or the bible and its “teachings”, yet I’m a good, honest and caring pacifist, who is more than willing to help my fellow man regardless of whether he is my brother or 60th cousin twice removed.
Let me be clear, there certainly is fact in the bible, most of all that which you’ve already alluded to -locations and cultural traditions- however, when it pertains to supernatural events and creationist dogma, there is NO evidence to back it up, none, zero, never has been and likely never will be.
You felt the need to defend religion; well that’s the intrinsic difference between science and religion. Science never has to defend itself. It relies on the evidence provided to validate hypotheses into theories, or the lack -more often the complete non-existence- of evidence to dismiss it. It’s this reason that the two can never work together. If there is any type of defensive stance by science, it seems that in most cases, science must defend itself from religion.
Incidentally, John Lennon also said: “Imagine no Religion”.
I found number one “spontaneous generation”, with the Quote: ” He bizarrley (no such word) believed that life arose from inanimate matter”.Well ..bizarre. I was always taught in school that evolution had to come from somewhere. Or had to begin somewhere. Hence we were taught that life arose from the inanimate. You can argue there has always been some form of basic primordial life but even that had to have a beginning and therefore must start from the inanimate. I guess I’m missing something here
Do you people realize that a theory is just that: A theory
astraya-
i assure you i’m the most sincere “complete stranger half-way around the world that [you've] never met and [are] never likely to [meet],” as far as the compliment on knowing the meaning of science goes! glad it made you smile, it was a genuine compliment from this stranger. it makes ME happy when people (especially those in other academic disciplines) know what “science” is.
oh anon- “some might quibble, it’s medical!” has an internal rhyme, and a terminal almost-rhyme, so it could be in a (very nerdy) rap song! say it out loud, again, with rhythm and FEELING! LOL
and “doctrine of signatures” helps me remember common names, like when i was planting “lung-worts” for my mother last year. i’ve always been a science freak, but the human history of herbs and mythology/folklore fascinates me too. it may not be science, but it’s a great story.
segue, if you were living on isle de cali in 25 M years, and we were all still around, i’d kayak out to visit. then we could paddle south to see if anon was still in chile (and not too chilly) stopping by my beloved peru on the way!