The shelf life of scientific theories

[Chimro]

Today, many people put their trust in scientists who give us an understanding of nature “as it is.” We accept as absolute truth what science holds to be true. Yes, some effort is made to observe the label "theory" in regards to what much of science tells us, but this is little more than a disclaimer. Gravity is still a theory, but how many people doubt it? This same faith has been applied to many other theories, such as evolution. Scientific speculation and theory have become the foundation of our worldviews, and we seldom ever question the structural integrity of this foundation. After all, if science teaches a particular theory, it is most likely to be true, isn't it? But what if this foundation has a history of disintegrating?

Professor of Philosophy and Scientific History, Dr. Steven L. Goldman of Lehigh University once stated in a lecture that the history of science overwhelmingly demonstrates that theories once considered established are more than likely to become obsolete and discredited over time. He's right. In fact, there are literally hundreds of scientific theories that were rarely even questioned, and yet we now look at them as pseudoscience or merely mistakes of the past. As each century passes, so does the majority of accepted scientific theories held dear in that century. Professor Goldman went on to ask in his lecture, "What is the probability—when we look at 2000 compared to 1900, 1900 compared to 1800, 1800 compared to 1700, 1700 compared to before Descartes and Bacon wrote a word—what is the probability that in 2100, those theories that scientists are telling us today are true will still be around? The probability seems small."

God tells us in Jeremiah 9:23-24, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom...But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me." Rather than build our worldview on a shifting foundation of scientific theory, we should entrust our lives to Christ and build our lives upon the Rock. Science should reinforce our trust in Christ, but should never become our foundation. As the years pass, theories come and go, and very few will survive the test of time; but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). So next time you hear another scientific assertion—or the next time a scientist makes a statement of fact about something that can only be theorized— take it with a grain of salt. Scientific theories often have an expiration date, but Jesus is forever.

[veraphilia]

Originally Posted by Chimro

Today, many people put their trust in scientists who give us an understanding of nature “as it is.” We accept as absolute truth what science holds to be true... Gravity is still a theory, but how many people doubt it? This same faith has been applied to many other theories, such as evolution. Scientific speculation and theory have become the foundation of our worldviews, and we seldom ever question the structural integrity of this foundation. After all, if science teaches a particular theory, it is most likely to be true, isn't it? But what if this foundation has a history of disintegrating?

Authoritarianism is no good whether it involves scientists, teachers, clergy, or government officials. No one should accept as absolute truth anything they are told, but rather think critically about it. Your post begins to reek of christian propaganda the instant you suggest Faith is involved in Science. In fact, the two methods of knowing are mutually exclusive, meaning they are not compatible. Faith involves believing in something because you are told you should. Science involves believing in something because it is observable and logical.

Originally Posted by Chimro

Professor of Philosophy and Scientific History, Dr. Steven L. Goldman of Lehigh University once stated in a lecture that the history of science overwhelmingly demonstrates that theories once considered established are more than likely to become obsolete and discredited over time. He's right. In fact, there are literally hundreds of scientific theories that were rarely even questioned, and yet we now look at them as pseudoscience or merely mistakes of the past.

Professor Goldman is absolutely correct to point out that many theories have been cast out or revised over time. What this implies is that science does not make final conclusions, but rather reflects the best of our knowledge and capabilities at a particular time; science is an evolving process. As more research is done, theories either remain relevant or not, and as technology gets more advanced, theories either remain accurate or not. Science is improved through both the refutation and confirmation of existing theories. Both advance our knowledge.

Originally Posted by Chimro

God tells us...

Considering you quote the bible, what gives you the confidence in the claims of it's authors? The book is chock full of inaccurate and irrational claims about how the world works. Their ignorance is excusable, as well as any writers of the past, for their knowledge was a product of their times, limited by the lack of scientific data we take for granted today. Are you prepared to offer the claims of the bible to scientific scrutiny? Of course not... There is no evidence to support the claims of the bible. There is no evidence of Eden, no evidence of God, and no evidence of Noah's Ark, the list goes on.

Maybe you should examine how much the bible has been refuted versus confirmed... Maybe you wouldn't be so quick to have faith.

[Rust]

It's obvious you're a troll, but just in case someone actually takes this seriously:


1. With each passing year the scientific method becomes stronger. Those theories of old that came and went were made when the scientific method was essentially in its infancy; when the importance of control in experiments, of double blind tests, of falsification and prediction wasn't understood and/or followed as strong.

This means that today's theories are supported by much stronger evidence, and have withheld much stronger attempts at refutations. The likelihood that they will be significantly replaced is much much lower.

2. Most current theories, if they are replaced, will not be replaced with anything drastic. Any new theory that attempts to replace an existing one will have to explain the same data we see today. Cosmological theories will have to include background radiation, the age of the universe, the expanding universe, etc. Biological theories will have to include the facts that we've gather regarding the genetic mutation and the natural selective pressures that cause changes in population of organisms overtime.


3. "God did it" was once a "theory" and it failed miserably. It's include in the long lists of "theories" that have been replaced, as Dr. Steven L. Goldman states.

[dal7timgar]

Gravity is still a theory, but how many people doubt it?

The existence of gravity isn't in doubt but "what it is/how it works" is theorized about.

This bent space business bothers me but I am not going to study it enough to see if it is comprehensible. Global Warming is of more practical importance. There are no theorized changes in gravity in the next few hundred years.

DT