[Samuel]

Interesting short article. Occasionally there are debates here that include various explanations scientists give to this or that. Scientists say something so it must be true and there can be no reasonable dispute. But then one day more information comes along from whatever valid source and... voila... they were wrong. Makes you wonder what else they could be wrong about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/...ci_space_blobs

[NCC-73515]

Nothing new. The very essence of science is making new discoveries and expanding knowledge.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

Nothing new. The very essence of science is making new discoveries and expaning knowledge.

Sure. But some insist they are correct and new knowledge wont change anything. In other words.... scientific dogma.

[KJTrek]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Interesting short article. Occasionally there are debates here that include various explanations scientists give to this or that. Scientists say something so it must be true and there can be no reasonable dispute. But then one day more information comes along from whatever valid source and... voila... they were wrong. Makes you wonder what else they could be wrong about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/...ci_space_blobs

I don't think it's a secret that scientists make "mistakes", but I'd hardly call this a mistake. This is an area of research we know very little about, and the disproving of a hypothesis (which is all that it was) is not enough to say they were "wrong"; it is simply the ongoing refinement of our understanding of the cosmos.

I am curious to know what you were implying as to "what else they could be wrong about".

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by KJTrek

I am curious to know what you were implying as to "what else they could be wrong about".

Oh that only means I keep an open mind and that what is considered factual or impossible today might be wrong or possible tomorrow. Throughout history there are always people in such fields who do not. One of those human conditions that never seems to go away no matter how advanced we get. So the question is... what kind of scientific knowledge today might be proven to be incorrect tomorrow. None? All? Unknown? I have no idea myself but I dont discount anything.

[MonsieurHood]

I always thought scientists learned as much from failure as from success.

[TheTrekkie]

In fact only the possibility to fail makes science scientifical.

Hypothesis that can't be falsified or verified aren't scientifical. The process of validation (with the possibilities of falsification or verification) is the essential aspect that distinguish science from religion.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Sure. But some insist they are correct and new knowledge wont change anything. In other words.... scientific dogma.

I'm glad I didn't have to say.

[Sohna]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Sure. But some insist they are correct and new knowledge wont change anything. In other words.... scientific dogma.

Scientists are people before they are scientists. The trouble comes when someone like you described gets himself/herself into a position of authority. The most recent notable example of this that I can think of is the guy (can't remember his name) that delayed the decipherment of the Mayan writing system back 50 years because he was convinced the writing was "primitive" and meaningless and his word was law at the time. They had to virtually wait for him to die before any progress could be made. Fortunately, this kind of power collected in one individual is rare (i.e. requires a very specialized field, which Mayan studies was at the time), so it doesn't happen often.

[Saquist]

The problem is still manifested in science's method of credential bias.
It happens far too often in the areas of the unknown and we only find out when undeniable proof is revealed.