If confirmed scientific data has been proven false in the past, what else has it been wrong about?

Question

referring to the case of the celocant.

Science was 100% positive that the animal didn't exist anymore, then a whole bunch of them were found in the Amazon.

Don't give me creationist jargon, because that is unbelieveable to me. But I just wanna make sure we can all agree that no one knows 100% how the universe and life started.

Answer 1

The advantage with science is that it is willing to be proven wrong.

Answer 2

The coelacanth was not found anywhere near the Amazon but off the east coast of Africa near Madagascar. It was only known from fossils until living specimens were discovered. Science was not wrong about the coelacanth, it just hadn't found a live one until 1938. Since then others have been found around Indonesia.

Science observes the world and proposes hypotheses for how the world works. If hypotheses are tested and found to explain all the observations and experiments they are elevated to the level of theory which is as good as it gets in science. If further evidence shows the theory to be wrong,it is discarded or modified. Newtonian gravity served us well for hundreds of years and still works with large objects and space exploration. It is, however, wrong at the quantum level and einsteinian gravity, or relativity, is needed there.

Science does not deal in proofs or certainties, it deals with observation and experiment. If it is wrong it is the first to admit it. Bad science is always discovered by scientists.

Answer 3

The nice thing about science is when you're wrong about something you can stand up and say "look, I was wrong, this evidence here disproves me, but it proves this (whatever it was the guy who was wrong was wrong about)." Everybody learns a little more, and our body of knowledge grows. Science lives on ideas being proven false, because in order to prove something false you have to prove something else is true, right? Why are some people so fixated on the idea of science producing *ABSOLUTE* truths, and then when they're *proven* wrong act as if its undermined in its entirety? The entire point of science is that we make judgments based on the best research and information we have at the time, and our judgments change as we learn more and develop better means of research. Rather than say "X is true, because this old book says so and that's that" science says "based on what we know now, X is true - if we learn something new we'll re-evaluate the value of X"

Answer 4

There is vast difference between being false,wrong and disproved.Science does not deal with falsehood,which it leaves for unlimited use by religions.Inventions,discoveries and scientific approvals constantly travel through the journey of scrutiny and stand corrected,modified or proved wrong due to inherent nature of scientific inquiry.What we see today as a science may not be able to withstand scrutiny in future but that' is fine by science and accepted.A scientific truth is a truth within defined parameters,including a time frame,like as of now.

Answer 5

No coelocanths were found in the Amazon. For a period of time, the seas teamed with coelocanths in both shallow and deep water. In modern times, they were unknown, then they were found in a few isolated populations in deep water only in the Indian. This is a discovery does not show any data to be false, as there was no data, only the absence of data.

Creationists are experts in absence of data, since they have none. As a resort, they fling around meaningless lies such as this.

Answer 6

What confirmed scientific data was proven false in this instance? The LACK of any modern scientific data was the reason they believed the "celocant" was extinct. When actual living specimens were found, science admitted its mistake.

I believe Science would react in the same manner if any scientific data were provided that proved the existence of "God".

Answer 7

Any number of things. The point is not to be perfect but to be as accurate as possible. Scientists who lie get caught and discredited. Scientists whose work or conclusions are defective find themselves challenged in the peer-review process. Even scientists who achieve theoretical breakthroughs can expect to see their work tweaked or supplanted by subsequent observations and experiments.

It is the nature of science to doubt its own conclusions because there is always more information to collect, but the objective is always to understand better, so honest science is free to admit mistakes and try again. Compare this approach to other systems of "knowledge".

Answer 8

The fact that you are human?
I'm not sure. Tell me.

Which confirmed scientific data has been proved false? You show me and I'll show you data that wasn't actually confirmed or data that was inaccurate or data that was improperly collected.

Science, unlike the Bible, does not make claims of perfection. Science only promises to correct its mistakes when it finds them, and to continue to search for truth. That's to me much better than assuming that people thousands of year ago knew everything, and that we have no further need to study.

Answer 9

Science is an ever-changing learning process. All science really is is people observing the world around them and doing physical tests to figure things out. Sometimes things seem one way but then a new test shows that it's differant. Scientists will admit that they could always turn out to be wrong about anything. But based on the evidence that they collect, they naturally draw conclusions. What else can we do but try to figure things as best we can? If we're wrong, we're wrong. Should people NOT try to figure things out???

Answer 10

Science is never 100% positive about anything. Scientists qualify their remarks by saying, "The evidence suggests" "It appears to be"

Science demands that all conjectures are proven, proven and proven again before they are considered, then other people try to disprove them.

Answer 11

Scientific data is always incomplete because there is always more to discover. That's how progress is achieved.