• Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Agreed, but it leads to people who are less knowledgeable to draw the wrong conclusions.

    Basically for just about anything you want to do on Earth Newton works perfectly fine. You can send people to the moon using nothing but Newton. Two big things you need Einstein for is the orbit of Mercury and GPS satellites. So from a pure science point of view Newton is wrong or maybe incomplete. From a regular Joe point of view Newton is dead on. By proclaiming Newton is wrong, it leads to people concluding that all science is wrong, because there is always someone working on the next iteration. So people think vaccines are dangerous, wearing masks is dumb, herbs and spices cure cancer, global warming is fake and homeopathic shit does anything except remove money from their wallets. Because what do scientists know, they’ve been wrong all the time in the past.

    Newton is not wrong, it’s just incomplete for some very niche things. And Einstein fixed all of that so we’re all good.

    In reality it’s good to always be looking to disprove something and create new and better knowledge. But only if that’s your job and only for very niche things. We’ve got the basics down for most things on Earth and there is no reason any regular person should doubt that.

    • voluble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      By proclaiming Newton is wrong, it leads to people concluding that all science is wrong, because there is always someone working on the next iteration

      I’ve never had sympathy for this line of thinking. Is the average person truly too ignorant to understand that science is a constantly developing process of better understanding our universe, not some set of unimpeachable rules carved into stone tablets once and forever? The fact that science can be updated, changed, revolutionized, is what makes it powerful.

      If people need to be ‘protected’ from that fact, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way science is taught in schools. I can’t accept that the average person can’t comprehend such a simple idea that would take less than an hour to convincingly communicate.

      • yarr@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ve never had sympathy for this line of thinking. Is the average person truly too ignorant to understand that science is a constantly developing process of better understanding our universe, not some set of unimpeachable rules carved into stone tablets once and forever?

        YES because often times the opposing model is the Bible, which is updated very irregularly and people will form sects over a single differing interpretation of a single passage.

        Changing your mind / learning new information can be construed as the super-hated “flip-flop”.

        Unfortunately, the illogical are immune to logic. No amount of it will be effective.

        • voluble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          all it took to convince them evolution is completely wrong is a couple paragraphs about Lamarck and giraffes and Haeckel and embryos

          That’s incredibly shocking and concerning.

      • Lath@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, the average person is ignorant of stuff that need to be updated once in a while. There is something wrong with the current form of education. And you need to accept that understanding doesn’t come easy.

        If you can’t do that last part, well, there you go. Same thing for the average person.

      • kurwa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s less that Newton is wrong and more like it’s an approximation. Things always get more complicated because we are learning more about everything all the time, but for simple day to day things Newton is fine to be used and even taught.

        You could also say it’s important from a historical perspective, learning how we got from Newton to bigger and better things is important too.

    • confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Be careful saying homeopathy only removes money from wallets. Yes it does that but it can be worse. Most of the vials are just water but any with a 1x or 1c designation actually do have some of the herbal element remaining and can cause problems.

    • ferralcat@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      You see this thinking in science too. Dark matter has always struck me as an awful solution to a model breaking down. It’s basically “the numbers don’t add up so let’s add a fudge factor to make it say what we want”. But you’re generally considered a kook for questioning it now. People will spout a bunch of big words and hope you shut up if you do.

      • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s called dark because we can’t see it, and matter because it interacts gravitationally. There is nothing wrong with the term and the model of it even if we don’t fully understand what the hell exactly it actually is and most importantly why it actually is. It’s literally how science works. We don’t know what the hell quantum probabilities and all the weird particles and fields mean on a metaphysical level either but QFT is the most tested and predictively powerful theory of science ever made. Is it complete? No, we may even never find the theory of everything. But it doesn’t make our discoveries wrong.

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Dark matter has been supported by various observations and is the best explanation we have. It’s not the most widely accepted model just by pure faith, you know.

        I have to admit I never liked it too much myself, but what do I know? There is an alternative theory, but it has its own problems.

      • paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think it’s more a matter of, “We know there’s something that’s causing an effect, but we can’t see it or fully explain it… yet.” There’s something in the science and observations that’s just not lining up the way it should. There are some ideas that have floated around that say that dark matter isn’t necessary, it’s just a misunderstanding of one factor or another, but nobody has really been able to nail the question yet, so it persists.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It’s more than that. There’s something that doesn’t add up, but if we assume the answer is “dark matter”, we can make predictions about it, that can guide us toward proving or disproving. Similarly, if we assume it’s one of the other theories, we can make predictions on what it must be like.

          Dark matter is most straightforward because we understand best how matter acts. How much more matter do we need for the observations to make sense, based on current understanding? Ok, what could that matter be that acts gravitationally but we can’t see? How can we detect that?