Than some one finds out that they were fairy tales after all because he discovered other facts that proved otherwise?
2006-09-04 02:29:16 · 4 answers · asked by goring 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Is the photon a good example =belief in a packet which is explained by another unexplained entity but confirm by experiment saying they know the composition of light?No real proof?
2006-09-04 02:41:19 · update #1
As scientists studied light, they noticed that in some ways it behaved like particles. So, they said, "If light is particles, what would the particles be like? What properties would they have? How would they behave?" Then, they did a whole lot of math and a whole lot of experiments to see if it all made sense and was consistent with real observations and measurements. They tried to think of all the possible consequences of their theory and to test them.
You could calculate the gravitational force between two masses, but you could say that it takes faith to believe it will always be this way. Some scientists describe the mechanism of gravity as the exchange of virtual particles called gravitons. This is a better candidate for a fairy tale than the photon. By definition, it doesn't exist. But it provides a useful way of doing calculations that seems to match observations.
Darwin came up with a lot of really good ideas. People carried on the work. The whole science of genetics came out of this. Controlled plant and animal breeding to encourage desired properties and discourage bad ones came out of this. That's good science. But some people made wild, unsubstantiated extentions of this science, not because they sought an understanding of how the world works, but because they refused to consider any theory which might involve a Creator, and desperately sought any other explanation. They ruled out a theory, not because it was a bad theory or didn't match reality, but because they didn't like it. That's more like a fairy tale.
2006-09-04 04:31:39 · answer #1 · answered by Frank N 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is always an element of faith in science. If you are observing something, then you have to have faith in the machine that is observing. If you want to learn chemistry, you have to have faith in the sub atomic matter.
There is no evidence for the Higgs Boson, the sub-atomic particle responsible for the weight of atoms, but evidence suggest that there has to be something.
The point, though, with science is that theories are constructed based on all the available evidence. These theories are tested and all attempts are to prove them wrong. In doing so, new, better fitting models will arise that explain the observable data better and so are incorperated into the theory.
All theories evolve.
Linus Pauling, the biochemist who discovered secondary structure in proteins proposed a triple helix structure for DNA, with the phosphates in the centre of the helix. This was proven incorrect by Watson/Crick/Franklin based on their data, but to Linus Pauling at the time, his theory fitted the data. This was discarded for the Watson-Crick structure, which is the best fitting model now.
2006-09-04 09:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by heidavey 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference between a fairy tale and a scientific theory is that one is believed on the basis of faith while the other is accepted on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
It's not a matter of one being true and the other false. A fairy tale may be confirmed by science (in which case it's no longer merely a fairy tale) and a theory may be busted.
2006-09-04 09:41:52 · answer #3 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It's based on observation and experimental data.
If, at a later time, someone comes out with a *new* theory, it has to explain the entire body of observation that the old theory explained as well as any new observation(s) that the old theory didn't explain.
Doug
2006-09-04 09:33:21 · answer #4 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋