Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Well... there *have* been scientific theories which were considered 
>> ridiculous for a long time, which eventually turned out to be correct. 
> 
>   I think this happened mostly at the latter half of the 1800's and very
> early in the 1900's. Many prominent scientists had got a bit arrogant
> because they believed that almost everything that there is to know about
> physics and the Universe is known, that there's nothing new left to
> discover. In other words, that the science branch of physics is "complete".
> Measurements which contradicted established theories, while a bit
> uncomfortable, were often just dismissed as having some simple explanation.

	You mean, like today's theoretical particle physicists? From their
perspective, the Standard Model is complete. If the LHC finds the Higgs
Boson where they expect it, then that'll be the final evidence they need
to declare it so.

	As for within the scientific disciplines, and especially in relatively
new fields, I see this arrogance frequently. Someone puports a new
theory that explains certain phenomena (in some material, say). The
referees routinely reject it purely because it's not based on the
current model. These aren't big issues/theories, which is why usually
the only people who know about them are those directly involved.


-- 
!@#$%^&*: The most widely used computer term worldwide.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message