Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mercury"
(example of publications being in a rush to express certainty where none exists) |
(I suggest we create a list of scientific theories and assumptions which were later disproven.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In the 1960s '''observations''' showed it had a period of 58.6 (which is exactly 2/3 of 88 days). Another example of publications being in a rush to express certainty where none exists. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | In the 1960s '''observations''' showed it had a period of 58.6 (which is exactly 2/3 of 88 days). Another example of publications being in a rush to express certainty where none exists. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I suggest we create a list of scientific theories and assumptions which were later disproven. Some of these will actually be pretty good guesses that remained tentative, because scientists '''knew''' and acknowledged their ignorance. Others will be cases of arrogance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also interesting in the [[History of science]] would be the reception given to new ideas and their advocates. Did other scientists listen to the new ideas and check out the information brought to them, or did they rush to condemn the researcher and his research? See also [[Paradigm shift]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:01, March 20, 2007
Astronomers used to assume that it rotated once every 88 days - although they really had no basis for this assumption. Encyclopedia Britannica even listed its rotation as 88 days (instead of "unknown").
In the 1960s observations showed it had a period of 58.6 (which is exactly 2/3 of 88 days). Another example of publications being in a rush to express certainty where none exists. --Ed Poor 07:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I suggest we create a list of scientific theories and assumptions which were later disproven. Some of these will actually be pretty good guesses that remained tentative, because scientists knew and acknowledged their ignorance. Others will be cases of arrogance.
Also interesting in the History of science would be the reception given to new ideas and their advocates. Did other scientists listen to the new ideas and check out the information brought to them, or did they rush to condemn the researcher and his research? See also Paradigm shift. --Ed Poor 08:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
