Laughable Past Scientific Theories

[Cobra1597]

A post in a previous thread inspired me to make this one:

Unlike the guy who suggested shutting down the Patent Office because 'everything had already been invented' (and that was before the Wright brothers flew), I sorta think we know very little and future generations will laugh at most of our theories of cosmology the way we laugh at ancient folk who thought the world was carried on the backs of giant turtles.

Now I for one would like to think that current ideas/science won't be looked at by future generations as something humorous or absurd. This isn't to say I'm certain "we are right," then I'd be no better than the guy wanting to shut down the Patent Office. Rather, I think that even if we are wrong, that future generations will look upon our theories and ideas as an evolutionary step to their accepted theories and models for the universe. This is my hope because we are not arriving out our theories today randomly or by throwing darts, we use the scientific method. We come up with hypothesis to explain observed phenomena, we make predictions based on those hypothesis (including the ability to falsify), we find observations or conduct experiments supporting those predictions, we have mathematical basis and explanations for our models, etc., all culminating in a well reasoned, tested, and supported theory. Yes, that's a rather awful 3 AM summary of the scientific method.

This got me to thinking, does anyone know of something we laugh at TODAY that was, in the past, accepted as mainstream science and arrived at through the scientific method, but has now been disproved?

At 3 AM I'm having trouble thinking of any examples. Take the Rutherford model of the atom, for example. Granted we have since replaced it (a few times over) with better models, yet we still teach the Rutherford model with a great deal of respect. The gold-foil experiment that supported it is often used as an example of conducting experiments in support of a hypothesis. I don't remember snickering about it the way we would for say, Aristotle's model of the universe.

For the purposes of this discussion, theories and models must have been arrived through the scientific method (meaning nothing like Piltdown Man, an intentional forgery), must have had some mainstream acceptance.

[SkepticJ]

Caloric theory: heat isn't motion of atoms, it's an invisible, weightless substance called caloric.

Phlogiston theory

Alchemy, before the astrological hokum etc. was discarded and it evolved into chemistry.

[grapes]

Some of the precursors to plate tectonics are considered pretty outrageous. Lord Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth is usually held up as a regretable effort. Catastrophe theory draws boos sometimes.

[HenrikOlsen]

Homeopathy was invented by the first guy¹ in centuries to base his ideas about medicine on direct observation rather than on slavishly repeating the crud that had been passed down from the ancients.
Unfortunately, being the first with that idea, the amount of data he had available was rather little so his hypothesis was utter crud itself.
That there are people who are now slavishly repeating the crud he said despite all evidence to the contrary would likely horrify him if he was alive today.²

1) Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim aka Paracelcus
2) Though he'd probably be even more horrified because of the dark cramped condition he'd be in.

[Paul Beardsley]

If time travel into the past turns out to be possible, I think people will laugh at our belief that grandfather paradoxes and issues of free will are a logical consequence of time travel.

Obviously I realise that it's highly likely that time travel is not possible, or at least forever beyond our reach. But a thread like this must of necessity be speculative.

[Paul Beardsley]

Homeopathy was invented by the first guy¹ in centuries to base his ideas about medicine on direct observation rather than on slavishly repeating the crud that had been passed down from the ancients.
Unfortunately, being the first with that idea, the amount of data he had available was rather little so his hypothesis was utter crud itself.
That there are people who are now slavishly repeating the crud he said despite all evidence to the contrary would likely horrify him if he was alive today.²

1) Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim aka Paracelcus
2) Though he'd probably be even more horrified because of the dark cramped condition he'd be in.

I thought homeopathy originated with nature cults, wicker men and so on.

[Perikles]

I don't remember snickering about it the way we would for say, Aristotle's model of the universe.

I think you should be rather careful about 'snickering' at any scientific model, no matter have absurd it may sound today. You have to start somewhere. Aristotle did not have the scientific background which you take for granted, and given the limited resources he had, some of his conclusions were remarkable.

[swampyankee]

Creationism and ID? Oh, you said past and scientific.

[cjameshuff]

I think you should be rather careful about 'snickering' at any scientific model, no matter have absurd it may sound today. You have to start somewhere. Aristotle did not have the scientific background which you take for granted, and given the limited resources he had, some of his conclusions were remarkable.

Other less well known philosophers did better than Aristotle at paying attention to what was going on outside their heads. Some of Aristotle's ideas are quite worthy of ridicule...things like the claim that men have more teeth than women. Or the idea that heavier objects fall faster...which simple reasoning suffices to prove false. (Drop two stones. Tie them together and drop them again. Does being tied together to form a single heavier object make them fall faster?)

[Disinfo Agent]

Or the idea that heavier objects fall faster...which simple reasoning suffices to prove false. (Drop two stones. Tie them together and drop them again. Does being tied together to form a single heavier object make them fall faster?)

He probably meant heavier objects of equal size.

But yes, Aristotle is overrated as a precursor of natural science. He was more of an encyclopedist. Speaking of which, he never devised a model of the universe of his own...

[Perikles]

Other less well known philosophers did better than Aristotle at paying attention to what was going on outside their heads. Some of Aristotle's ideas are quite worthy of ridicule...things like the claim that men have more teeth than women. Or the idea that heavier objects fall faster...which simple reasoning suffices to prove false. (Drop two stones. Tie them together and drop them again. Does being tied together to form a single heavier object make them fall faster?)

I really don't want to derail the thread by arguing about Aristotle in particular, but the two cases you cite are interesting for different reasons. He spread himself very thinly over observations of the physical world, it is hardly surprising he made quite a few mistakes through carelessness and lack of time. People tend to focus on one or two absurdities and forget the rest.
By the way, I have spent some time searching Aristotle for a clear and unambiguous statement where he says heavier objects fall faster, and I can't find one. If you can find an exact reference I would be grateful. The issue of teeth is interesting because it is just possible that he looked into a few mouths and came to a quick conclusion, failing to realise that the women were of an age where their wisdom teeth had not yet erupted. This would be an example of a simple explanation for an assertion which looks stupid in hindsight.

[Romanus]

^
In further modest defense of Aristotle, note that only a small fraction of his works survive, and (perhaps) not his best ones. Doesn't make him right, of course, but it gives the historian pause.

More relevant to the OP, that no one has mentioned yet: spontaneous generation--incidentally, propounded by Aristotle. It wasn't exactly arrived at scientifically, but through common observation, and wasn't conclusively disproven until Pasteur's work in the 1800s.

[Ara Pacis]

Luminiferous Aether.

[Gillianren]

Can I just interrupt to point out that the "wanted to close the Patent Office" thing is an urban legend? As it happens, the guy it's generally said about, whose name I don't remember, actually asked Congress for more employees, since the Patent Office was busier than ever.

[baric]

That dinosaurs went extinct because they were outcompeted by mammals. I can still remember that book artwork of a tiny rodent gnawing away on the tail of a LIVING, cold-blooded sauropod because he was apparently too dull and lethargic to notice.

Also: dinosaurs were cold-blooded because they were reptiles.

Also: sauropods spent the majority of their lives in water because they were too heavy to walk on land.

[Selenite]

Didn't science at one time attempt to explain divining or dowsing with sticks or rods as a legitimate scientific phenomenon, before coming to the conclusion that it was basically no better than chance in finding underground water or ores? Sadly, there was a case not too long ago of some swindler making money selling such implements as explosive detectors for combat zones. Who knows how many lives were lost due to misplaced confidence in the devices.

[wd40]

English philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge defected from evolutionism to creationism and
dared to bombastically predict in 1981 that:

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example."

But 30 years on we know who has had the last laugh!

[mike alexander]

In geology, Catastrophism. Which was replaced by Uniformitarianism. Which was replaced by a sort of Catastro-Uniformitarianism.

In biology (embryology), epigenesis was overshadowed by preformationism, which was overshadowed by epigenic vitalism, which was overshadowed by genetics, which is currently being modified by epigenetics.

I mention these two because both 'sides' had a piece of the truth.

[Gillianren]

Personally, I don't care much what any philosopher considers science unless it either predated the concept of science and shaped centuries of thinking or else is supported by what scientists think. In 1981, your Muggeridge was still lagging behind all scientific evidence.

[Romanus]

Can't believe we haven't mentioned this yet: the Ptolemaic system. Truth be told, it *can* be used to predict celestial movements and events, but the Copernican / Keplerian one is far superior (besides being correct), and has that essential quality of "elegance" that scientists always aim for.

Re Baric: Also, the idea that dinosaurs dragged their tails. Very few tail marks have ever been found.

Another long-dead "theory"--the lifelessness of the deep ocean.

[KaiYeves]

The belief that the Earth, the moon, and Mars were originally all one molten body that spun so fast pieces fell off.

[transreality]

Panspermia

[agingjb]

Malcolm Muggeridge a philosopher? Now that is laughable.

[wd40]

To be fair to old Ptolemy, Einstein himself said:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS".

the Ptolemaic system. Truth be told, it *can* be used to predict celestial movements and events, but the Copernican / Keplerian one is far superior (besides being correct), and has that essential quality of "elegance" that scientists always aim for.

[HenrikOlsen]

Can't believe we haven't mentioned this yet: the Ptolemaic system. Truth be told, it *can* be used to predict celestial movements and events, but the Copernican / Keplerian one is far superior (besides being correct), and has that essential quality of "elegance" that scientists always aim for.

Let's instead say it's more correct, since it's still only an approximation to the even more correct model we get when relativity is taken into account.
And it's quite possible that this will also one day be shown to be just one step in the lineup of ever more accurate models, though I haven't seen anything that's ready to replace it yet.

[SkepticJ]

Relatively recent ones:

Moons in the outer solar system must be inactive geologically. Just boring cratered balls of rock and ice.

The base of any food chain requires energy from the Sun.

It's impossible to optically image objects below the diffraction limit.

[MAPNUT]

We may never know, but I suspect many of the very specific conjectures made by archaeologists and paleontologists from evidence found in digs must be way off. When Dr. Inoforshur says, "The finding of this tool in this stratum means that these hominids held weekly ceremonies in which they toasted walnuts and offered them to the elders while painted with bear fat colored with beet juice", I can picture the hominids laughing at how much he got it wrong. But as I say, we'll never know.

[kamaz]

The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS".

Mathematically, yes. However, since all the bodies of the Solar System are held in their orbits by the Sun's gravity and not Earth's gravity, it is more natural to use a coordinate system anchored in the center of the Sun.

[grapes]

To be fair to old Ptolemy, Einstein himself said:

Actually a short passage from the book The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein and Infeld, probably mostly written by Infeld. But point taken.

[plant]

When Newton described his laws of motion, his ideas on 'Gravity' were caricatured by Hogarth:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/d...l?id=865000022

So... in revenge- I think "Dark Energy" should be renamed "Levity" (for Brevity).