Hypothethical question: When facts become Wrong

I had this weird thought awhile ago. IT seems that alot of people's ideas that were considered OK and accepted are later found out wrong and disproven. Do you think that in a few hundred years alot of what we are thinking are not true?

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 48Next »
Possibly.... Our current scientific knowledge may have a completely different version in the next million years or so. Think about it, there are different sides to a story. Our knowledge may might as well be only one side. Things fit together in different ways, but as long as it makes sense/fits, then yeah it's a fact. Well, string theory might be wrong, but it's only a theory just now. Anyway, 18th century science to us is considered wrong, but to them, it's right. I wonder how the 15th century was to them.... The point is, facts are facts until proven wrong, or they find a better fact that fits better...
Facts and inferences are different. Some of the inferences made by 18th and 19th Century scientists, for example, their theory of heat being a material, or their theory of the ether, are now recognized as wrong. But those theories were inferred from facts which are as true today as they were back then (heat flows from warm regions to cold regions, and light is a wave phenomenon).
What's so wrong about light being a wave? I've read both books that said that the wave theory is wrong because we can see photons (QED)and that said that particle theory is wrong because things about little clocks and arrows are too much thought up, while everything can be nicely explained with simple waves...
Light exhibits the characteristics of both waves and particles.
Who said there was anything wrong with light being a wave?

If one reads Kelsey's paragraph TOO fast, it could be misinterpreted that way. But a careful reading corrects that problem :-)
Nobody said (or should have said) that the wave theory of light is "wrong."

The existence of diffraction and interference are sufficient to demonstrate that light is a wave. You can't get wave interference without a wave.

The existence of the black-body radiation spectrum and the photoelectric effect are sufficient to demonstrate that light is also a particle (with energy proportional to frequency).

What I wrote above was that the theory of the ether was wrong. Light waves are not some sort of oscillating medium (analogous to sound waves in air or metal). The waves are oscillations of the electromagnetic field, which is not a material medium.
I though that you used 'heat flows from warm regions to cold regions, and light is a wave phenomenon' as examples of what used to be the working theory but now is proved wrong...
Oh! Sorry about that, my writing was not very clear. What I meant was, that the old 19th century theories (phlogiston and ether) are now seen as wrong. But the original facts upon which they based their theories -- how heat flows, and the wave nature of light -- were true back then, and are still true today. It's the explanations which have changed.
Oh-Oh! I though you meant flows like literally 'flows'.
1-10 of 48Next »