quote:Originally posted by Jack Fear:
what other seemingly self-evident scientific "truths" might be demolished in years to come?
That's an interesting question, although I cringe whenever I hear this question asked, in another form, by creationists. They seem to think that all the research done, and all the evidence gathered, that indicates that all life evolved from common ancestors is such a flimsily-arrived-at conclusion that it will inevitably be overturned when "better information" appears.
While it is true that science is not perfect -- nothing is, after all -- there is a definite spectrum of confidence on which we can hang any given theory or "law". For example, on one side, we can put all the string theory and quantum whatnot, and on the other side we can put things like "humans are alive" and "the earth orbits the sun". Science is not an indiscriminate pile of suggestions that form no larger whole.
There is always a possibility that any given "assumption" to be overturned, but science isn't based on "assumptions". It's based on evidence. Theories become more and more robust as the evidence supporting them continues to stack up.
The hippo-whale relationship you refer to is fascinating. I agree. And I treasure and welcome such research and such evidence. But that isn't quite the same as evidence suggesting, for example, that humans were created "as is", or that the earth is only a week old, or that you can make objects hover in the air by thinking really hard about them.
Some people (and I'm not suggesting anyone in Barbelith) think that the "anything is possible" mantra means that they can decide what is true and what isn't, based upon what they would like to be true. Which is baloney. Just because anything is possible doesn't mean that some things aren't far more likely than others.
Clavis |
