Science Progresses One Funeral

Related corollary quote:A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it - Max PlanckIf most 'scientists' rarely change their mind, there other mortals are a far cry.

Survival is how science works. Some theories are proven wrong, others are proven right. The theories that are proven wrong are often still quite accurate except for some edge cases. We shouldn't use our advantage of having one entire century plus two decades of research history to ridicule scientists from 100 years ago. They didn't have python, excel or pocket calculators. Yet they were able to derive really fancy rules and laws. I think that's really impressive, even if they were

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" -- Max Planck

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck

"He suspected “that many people had had this idea, knew more about glaciology than I did, and obviously concluded it could never work.” “If we really had [known] what we were doing we would probably not have done it. And, in fact, it turns out that a lot of the things we should have known turned out not to be true.”"This paragraph reminded me a lot of the quote of Max Planck saying that "science progresses one funeral at a time" (removing old and incorrect convictions from

Science is not fixed. A long time ago there was a long standing agreement that the sun and other planets were orbiting around the Earth, and they had complex models (Ptolemean ones) to calculate their trajectories, and that was reasonnably working well until humanity was able to get much more precise tools to measure the planets position and found inconsistencies.The History of Science is full of such "largely admitted theories" that fell flat when new data, new methods were introduced.Wha

Your "belief" is not based on evidence.Full stop.Name any dead, famous scientist. They upended the scientific conventional wisdom and accepted truth.If you could do that, you'd be in the history books.You can't.It's like arguing with he time cube guy, but not about what he is gonna publish next Tuesday, but the future of the human race in the balance.Do you get now why it is infuriating?

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck

Please read up on the last century of history of science - in particular the Copenhagen Interpretation and for more recent history, Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics." The history of science is replete with examples of reason being mistaken for empirical fact, and this seems to be becoming more common, not less.