Modern Science vs The Children of the Future

Scientists have a theory for most anything. They make observations, they conduct studies and experiments, and then they "take a guess," albeit an "educated guess" based on the facts and the best hypothesis available in relation to those facts. We call them "scientific theories" and not "science facts" for one very good reason: we don't actually "know."

As it turns out, we very often turn out to be wrong. Scientific Theories are regularly disproven, meaning that they're a "state of the art" understanding of the universe, based on current information. Like technology, they become obsolete once a theory which better fits the established facts comes along. For example, you probably learned in school that the universe was formed via "The Big Bang." However, it's been determined that the math behind The Big Bang Theory literally "doesn't add up." This is why you may have heard of other theories such as "String Theory."

You'd be surprised to know where many of the theories we hold true today originated from. For instance, Aristotle produced a key point to the evolution argument when he suggested that humanity has observed life forming from nothing, pointing to maggots forming from rotting corpses, and postulated that Earth's first life forms may have then spawned from pools of sludge or some such thing . Of course, today we understand that rotting corpses don't evolve into maggots, but microbiology didn't exist in those times.

Today, scientists talk about "dark energy" and "dark matter," which originated from an astronomer and mathematician noting that the orbit of a stellar object seemed perturbed by the gravitational effect of some yet unknown body. He used observational data and mathematics to determine where he believed that mystery object must be, and when he looked there, he found nothing. He didn't say "well, my calculations must be wrong." Instead, he decided it must be invisible, only detectable indirectly by its effects on other objects. Similarly, a 19th century astronomer and mathematician observed that the orbit of Mercury appeared perturbed by an unseen body. That scientist announced that he'd (indirectly) discovered a new planet, and named it "Vulcan." Of course, that scientist was eventually disproven, and now Vulcan only exists in Star Trek. Dark matter and dark energy will likely come to experience the same fate, as this scenario has repeated itself throughout history.

The only facts that we know with any certainty is the fact of our own ignorance. We've only just barely stepped out from the caves. We invented the airplane just a hundred years ago. We invented the steam locomotive only a hundred years before that. We're absolutely primitive. Just as many of our scientific theories a thousand years ago have been disproven, it's reasonable to conclude that a great many of today's scientific theories won't hold true a thousand years into our future. It's not that scientists are foolish, but that when we discover new facts that contadict old theories, we discard those obsolete concepts. As we learn of the theories presented by modern science, we aren't witnessing truth. We witness a single step in the evolution of knowlege.

Humanity once believed that fire was an element contained within all things, and for this reason when we apply sufficient heat to an object, it will burst into flames - the heat attracting the fire within, compelling it into the open. At one time, lightening was a sign from the gods. Zeus was throwing lightning bolts out of fury for some transgression or another. Bad harvests were punishments for sin, and the solution was to repent, and to beg the gods to stop smiting you, through prayer and worship. If that fails, then we must make great sacrifices to appease the gods, as they must be angry with our materialism and greed that was born from our previous prosperity. We must sacrifice our possessions and return to the path the gods wish us to follow. If need be, we must sacrifice our cherished pets and valuable livestock, and if that doesn't work: eachother. Slaying our firstborn children might do the trick, or perhaps tossing hordes of virgin girls into volcanos. Once we've regained the favor of the gods and the famine has ended, it would be wise to thank them before each meal, lest they again become angry with us for taking our sustenance for granted. We only have good harvests if it is the will of the gods, and we must not allow the gods to think we've forgotten that.

It's hard to interpret such concepts as those as science, but that was the state of the art understanding of the universe at the time. I wonder what we believe today in which thousands of years from now people will look back on us the very same way we percieve our own ancient ancestors. Two hundred years ago people thought disease was a scent. Having arrived at that conclusion, the British government began dumping their sewage into the river Thames to rid themselves of the danger of its vile scent. Thames was London's water supply, and London was quickly rocked by disease as a result. What're our "disease is a scent" beliefs? What're our "dragons?" In the year 4016, what will make all the school children giggle during their lecture on 21st Century history?

What do we believe today that those children will instantly understand to be comically wrong?

a reply to: Navarro

What do we believe today that those children will instantly understand to be comically wrong?

Political Science.


What a great read Navarro, SnF I thoroughly enjoyed this op.

a reply to: Navarro

Absolutely primitive, eh? You realize what the word means, right? There is no known advancement further than our own, where we are now.

I do get your point, though. There's no good reason to take where we are right now as being particularly enlightened in the grand scheme of what our species may become. I agree we will in the future prove false much of what is taught today as fact and truth.

Just don't allow this insight to automatically discredit what understandings we do have. I hold the line of reasoning in the OP in mind pretty much at all times, but it's just one of many considerations when trying to assess situations.

Very nice!!

I have a theory.. Maybe touches on what you're saying with a bit of stretch.. I believe you are right in the fact that the children will have a much different and hopefully better understanding of the universe and all its wonders. One thing I have always thought though is that either way it goes for better or worse, our future generations will be living much more like our ancestors did than we do today..

I also think that some of the civilisations of antiquity had a more clear understanding of nature and her laws than we do today.

The thing about being covilized is that the loss of understanding comes far easier than the gains... It may prove that we lose more in the next hundred years than we gained in the last 10,000.

I stopped reading after you made out like string theory was an alternative to the big bang.

Also, who has said the maths of the big bang are wrong?

I'm not suggesting the big bang Is definitely true but it's the best theory we have. And there is enough evidence pointing to it to be believable.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I stopped reading after you made out like string theory was an alternative to the big bang.

Also, who has said the maths of the big bang are wrong?

I'm not suggesting the big bang Is definitely true but it's the best theory we have. And there is enough evidence pointing to it to be believable.

Exactly!

It's hard to take this seriously without any citations whatsoever. The Big Bang Theory "doesn't add up"? Really? You seem to indicate that's why we have heard of String Theory. Really? They aren't even talking about the same thing. And you also delve into religious beliefs of people in the past as if they are in parallel with science. They aren't. They are still with us today, still often contradicting what science has taught us. But you've thrown everything into one big pot to criticize it all.

Overall the post fails to acknowledge that science not so much discounts and discards older theories, but builds upon them. That doesn't mean the older theories are wrong. It's just that they have taken us only part way in our understanding.

For example, by the end of the 19th century science as a whole believed they just about had the universe explained in terms of Newtonian Mechanics. The Universe was a giant clockwork-type mechanism where everything could be explained as a physical reaction to something else. At a molecular level there were atoms composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons like small solar systems. That was our understanding of how the Universe worked, and through this understanding a great deal of progress was made, including, for example, electricity. So many scientists felt that though there were a few finishing touches to apply, they were just about there.

Then along came Relativity, and after that Quantum Mechanics. Our understanding of the universe changed drastically. Does that mean that the clockwork explanation of Newtonian Mechanics was thrown out? Of course not. It was incorporated into a broader, more inclusive theory. Newtonian Mechanics still works. Those old theories are still valid, but now we've added context because we know that they do not explain everything.

Isaac Newton once paraphrased a 12th century scientist named Bernard of Chartres (therefore the idea has been around for awhile) when he said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Your post fails to acknowledge this, and as a result it is unnecessarily critical and pessimistic and takes an unjustifiably lofty and superior point of view. Our children 1,000 years from now will acknowledge the contribution of the last couple of hundred years because they will be smart enough to know that of they have seen further themselves, it is because they stood on our shoulders to do so.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I stopped reading after you made out like string theory was an alternative to the big bang.

Also, who has said the maths of the big bang are wrong?

I'm not suggesting the big bang Is definitely true but it's the best theory we have. And there is enough evidence pointing to it to be believable.

Exactly!

It's hard to take this seriously without any citations whatsoever. The Big Bang Theory "doesn't add up"? Really? You seem to indicate that's why we have heard of String Theory. Really? They aren't even talking about the same thing. And you also delve into religious beliefs of people in the past as if they are in parallel with science. They aren't. They are still with us today, still often contradicting what science has taught us. But you've thrown everything into one big pot to criticize it all.

Overall the post fails to acknowledge that science not so much discounts and discards older theories, but builds upon them. That doesn't mean the older theories are wrong. It's just that they have taken us only part way in our understanding.

For example, by the end of the 19th century science as a whole believed they just about had the universe explained in terms of Newtonian Mechanics. The Universe was a giant clockwork-type mechanism where everything could be explained as a physical reaction to something else. At a molecular level there were atoms composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons like small solar systems. That was our understanding of how the Universe worked, and through this understanding a great deal of progress was made, including, for example, electricity. So many scientists felt that though there were a few finishing touches to apply, they were just about there.

Then along came Relativity, and after that Quantum Mechanics. Our understanding of the universe changed drastically. Does that mean that the clockwork explanation of Newtonian Mechanics was thrown out? Of course not. It was incorporated into a broader, more inclusive theory. Newtonian Mechanics still works. Those old theories are still valid, but now we've added context because we know that they do not explain everything.

Isaac Newton once paraphrased a 12th century scientist named Bernard of Chartres (therefore the idea has been around for awhile) when he said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Your post fails to acknowledge this, and as a result it is unnecessarily critical and pessimistic and takes an unjustifiably lofty and superior point of view. Our children 1,000 years from now will acknowledge the contribution of the last couple of hundred years because they will be smart enough to know that of they have seen further themselves, it is because they stood on our shoulders to do so.

Quoted for agreement. Thanks for writing everything I was too lazy to write. Haha

Star and flag for whatever that's worth. You'll probably be getting more argument for posting this than agreement but that's just my unscientific guess.

a reply to: schuyler

I enjoyed the op for what it is, regardless of citations or not I found the message to be thought provoking. =D I never thought to ponder what we use today to explain an aspect of life and the universe tomorrow could be laughable, or at least that is what I extracted from this thread.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: schuyler

I enjoyed the op for what it is, regardless of citations or not I found the message to be thought provoking. =D I never thought to ponder what we use today to explain an aspect of life and the universe tomorrow could be laughable, or at least that is what I extracted from this thread.

Sorry but the OP is making big claims to back up what he's written. Citations are needed.

But to answer you, I'm not sure that our current knowledge of things like quantum mechanics or relativity will ever be considered laughable. They just WORK. So we are either totally or partly right about them...

a reply to: 3danimator2014

That's fair enough, I was just saying why I liked the op. Just my humble opinion, I can understand where everyone else is coming from as well.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: schuyler

I enjoyed the op for what it is, regardless of citations or not I found the message to be thought provoking. =D I never thought to ponder what we use today to explain an aspect of life and the universe tomorrow could be laughable, or at least that is what I extracted from this thread.

I'm glad you derived some good information, but my point is that it betrays a lack of understanding of how science works and an unnecessary and unjustified cynicism along with several serious mistakes, string theories equivalence to the Big Bang being the first one that pops out at you. To suggest that what has been accomplished in our understanding in the last couple hundred years is laughable is itself laughable. The entire post suggests only a minimal and elementary understanding of the Scientific Method and is, I believe, misleading.

a reply to: schuyler

You seem to indicate that's why we have heard of String Theory. Really? They aren't even talking about the same thing.

To a certain extent, they are. String "theory" (I don't think it actually can be termed a theory, though) includes the notion of branes. It goes on to hypothesize that the intersection of branes is what initiates the formation of a universe.

originally posted by: Brotherman
Political Science.

What a great read Navarro, SnF I thoroughly enjoyed this op.

I once asked someone a very abbreviated version of this question, and their response was similar. They seemed to be of the opinion that the modern political/economical/social situation will one day give way to "absolute freedom" of a libertarian, anarchic or perhaps socialist nature. I think it's easy to expect that uncommon understandings will one day become popular truths in the future. I'll ask you the same question that I asked him: do you anticipate humanity will progress in the direction you speculate, or do you hope humanity will? That is, do you have evidence suggestive of this outcome, or is it that you're inclined to interpret your own personal philosophical beliefs to be logical, and as such conclude the future will develop along that rational course?

I've studied the history of our political, economic and social institutions and orders, and I've found that they've remained incredibly consistent. Medieval Feudalism appears very different from modern society, but is it really? Serfs worked for their Lords and were paid only a meager pittance in comparison to the value of their labor. Meanwhile, the Nobles reaped the vast majority of the profits, spending their time playing and feasting, living on impressive estates, in luxurious manors and imposing castles. The serfs spent their time engaging in backbreaking labor, sixteen hours a day working the fields under the scorching summer sun, eventually coming home to straw huts that doubled as barns for livestock. Are you sure our social order has changed so much? What about our political order, from Monarchs to Presidents and Nobles to Oligarchs?

I'm reminded of an event in history called "The Peasant's Revolt." The people had grown tired of performing all of the labor for only a fraction of the benefit, where the nobles performed none of the labor for the majority of the benefit. The situation became so widespread that it was a continental phenomena which threatened the whole of Europe's social order. Army's were dispatched, sieges were laid, and finally the Aristocrats arrived at a solution. They announced that the peasants were henceforth "freemen," and they offered employment to any who sought it. The peasants returned to their straw huts and fields and life resumed, just as it had been before. Precisely as events had transpired myriad times before that particular revolt. They didn't want to be free; they had no grasp of what "freedom" was. They just wanted to be told that they were free. They fought, bled and died, for a word.

When it comes down to it, the differences between the various orders, past and present, are just words. The system we have today is only aesthetically different from the systems of our past. The politics, and by extension, the order of today has prevailed throughout written history. We've always been drinking cool-aid. The only thing that changes is the flavor. If our political, economic and social situation is so resilient that it's remained in tact throughout all history, then why should we expect that situation to have changed two-thousand years from now? It was the same two-thousand years ago, why would it be different two-thousand years in the future?

An alternative future is one where our "children" 1,000 years from now know nothing of science. Thy might know only how to describe the world from a religious perspective, where everything is a miracle and cannot be explained. DO not laugh, it has happened in our own history. The advancement of man's knowledge is not a clear linear line upward. It is more of a varying amplitude waveform. If it were not for the black death and the Renaissance that followed, we might still think the Earth was the center of the Universe. We might still be forbidden to question or analyze nature and the natural processes for fear of heresy and death of some sort.

That still could be in our future...so I would not count on it being all butterflies and space unicorns at all.

That is my opinion, based upon human history and the role of religion vs science in the past.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I stopped reading after you made out like string theory was an alternative to the big bang.

Also, who has said the maths of the big bang are wrong?

I'm not suggesting the big bang Is definitely true but it's the best theory we have. And there is enough evidence pointing to it to be believable.

If you're knowledgeable of String Theory, then you should be aware that it appears to describe the early universe. M-Theory and Type IIB are of particular note. The early universe generally presents the problem of apparent weakly interacting strings, but at least one model is suggestive of strongly interacting strings within the early universe. You may be aware of a recent experiment where physicists attempted to test a component of String Theory with regard to the foundation and by extension formation of the universe. The media spoke of "matrixes" and "lattices" if that seems familiar.

String Theory is sometimes described as a "Theory of Everything," and certainly includes working toward the formation and origin of the universe. If you interpreted my original statement as suggestive that String Theory has replaced Big Bang Theory, then that wasn't my intention. If you feel that String Theory has no relation to the formation of the universe, then you're also mistaken.

As far as Big Bang being "believable," you're not aware of the problems with the math immediately prior to the "bang." The math used to describe Big Bang, simply doesn't. According to our current understanding, Big Bang doesn't appear possible. Expansion appears evident, but Big Bang is not. That's not according to me, but according to prominent mathematicians and physicists.

a reply to: Navarro

As far as Big Bang being "believable," you're not aware of the problems with the math immediately prior to the "bang."

No math is applicable to prior. There is no theory which attempts to describe conditions prior.

That's not according to me, but according to prominent mathematicians and physicists.

Some, perhaps. But the theory has not been falsified as yet, has it?

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I stopped reading after you made out like string theory was an alternative to the big bang.

Also, who has said the maths of the big bang are wrong?

I'm not suggesting the big bang Is definitely true but it's the best theory we have. And there is enough evidence pointing to it to be believable.

Exactly!

It's hard to take this seriously without any citations whatsoever. The Big Bang Theory "doesn't add up"? Really? You seem to indicate that's why we have heard of String Theory. Really?

It didn't provide any citations for anything else within the original post either. The point of the thread is obviously not to debate physics, but to explore the fact that as history progresses, what we know often becomes what we thought we knew. As such, I asked, what might we believe to be true today, which will be perceived as false tomorrow?

If you're interested on my Big Bang remark, I suggest that you utilize google to ascertain what I'm referring to. My remark was an aside, and I'm certainly not inclined to debate the matter when you're suggesting that I'm speaking in ignorance, where the issue is that you're oblivious the subject. How far does the Big Bang equation proceed? Does Big Bang actually ever achieve a Big Bang? Or does it instead only approach such a moment, at which time the math becomes unable to actually produce a Big Bang? There's a gap there, and we observe no logical, mathematic means for which to bridge it.

I didn't invent the theory of an incomplete Big Bang, I'm reporting the findings of others far more intelligent than myself, who say it doesn't appear to work. Look into it, or don't. Either way is perfectly fine with me.

originally posted by: Phage
No math is applicable to prior. There is no theory which attempts to describe conditions prior.

I didn't mean "prior" to the formation of the universe, but instead, if we were to travel to the formation of the universe from the present time, I'm referencing "just prior" to our arrival at it.

originally posted by: Phage
Some, perhaps. But the theory has not been falsified as yet, has it?

If the math doesn't seem presently capable of producing a Big Bang, then the prospect of a Big Bang is somewhat less plausible.

a reply to: Navarro

By observing we might understand is what I learned.. It's a gift from nature