Skip to main content

What Sciences are Settled?

 "Settled science" refers to scientific theories and principles that are widely accepted by the scientific community because they are supported by a substantial body of evidence and have withstood rigorous testing over time. While no scientific knowledge is ever considered absolutely final, certain fields and principles are regarded as highly reliable. All of the examples below are rather solid within their scope. Five hundred years ago, none of these existed*.

1. Newtonian Mechanics (in most everyday contexts - not at quantum level)

2. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (but it is a process as much as a science)

3. The Germ Theory of Disease (yet other forms, e.g. prion have been found)

4. The Structure of DNA (as the key component of life)

5. Heliocentrism (the Earth revolves around the sun)

6. Plate Tectonics (originally rejected)

7. The Big Bang Theory (foundational in cosmology, but questions remain – big ones)

8. Conservation Laws (Energy, Momentum, and Mass)

9. Atomic Theory (Of course there is modern string theory, quarks, and others subparticles out there. In schools you may have learned that atoms are the building blocks of matter. That ain’t necessarily so.)

For the record climate change (science) is not settled. It is very new and there is much information/data not yet used in the models. Give it another century (the blink of an eye in science terms).

* Heliocentrism is an exception that has bounced around for millennia, though earth-centered systems lasted the longest, even up to the time of Galileo


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view