this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
160 points (94.9% liked)

Ask Science

8681 readers
6 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a tendency for real doctors with backing from Academia or whoever's in charge of deciding how you science to just plain getting it wrong and not realizing it for a long time.

Homeopathy is a good example of this, as it appeared to get great results when it was created during the Bubonic Plague and had such staying power to the point that in the 1800's it was considered a legitimate and mainstream field of medical practice.

Now today we know Homeopathy is nonsense... Remembers New Age Healing is still a thing Okay, those of us with sense know homeopathy is garbage. With the only reason it was getting such wonderful results was because the state of medicine for a long period of time in human history was so god awful that not getting any treatment at all was actually the smarter idea. Since Homeopathy is basically just "No medicine at all", that's exactly what was happening with its success.

Incidentally this is also why the Christian Science movement (Which was neither Christian nor Science) had so many people behind it, people were genuinely living longer from it because it required people to stop smoking at a time when no one knew smoking killed you.

Anyhow. With that in mind, I want to know if there's a case where the exact opposite happened.

Where Scientists got together on a subject, said "Wow, only an idiot would believe this. This clearly does not work, can not work, and is totally impossible."

Only for someone to turn around, throw down research proving that there was no pseudo in this proposed pseudoscience with their finest "Ya know I had to do it 'em" face.

The closest I can think of is how people believed that Germ Theory, the idea that tiny invisible creatures were making us all sick, were the ramblings of a mad man. But that was more a refusal to look at evidence, not having evidence that said "No" that was replaced by better evidence that said "Disregard that, the answer is actually Yes"

Can anyone who sciences for a living instead of merely reading science articles as a hobby and understanding basically only a quarter of them at best tell me if something like that has happened?

Thank you, have a nice day.

(page 3) 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

I think an interesting one (that is still controversial) is that megakaryocytes(MKs) in the lung actually produce a significant amount of the platelets in your body. Rather than platelets all coming from bone marrow MKs. It is interesting because these two different platelet origins have different responses to infection.

[–] [email protected] 94 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Continental drift was a theory formed in 1912 by a German meteorologist, Alfred Wegener. Geologists balked at the idea of enormous landmasses moving and said the idea of an Urkonintent was ridiculous. And besides, he was a weatherman, German weatherman, so outside of his field and untrustworthy as a German was considered at the outbreak of WW1.

Then, 50 or so years later his theory was rediscovered when different fields were trying to understand polar magnetic drift evident in iron ore formation. The only explanation that made sense from the evidence is that mountains were not permanent and oceans didn't exist in some areas - a lot like the land masses moved.

Wegener was eventually vindicated in almost all areas except drift speed. There was an Urkonintent, which has been named Pangaea. The continents do move but because they sit upon plates. He had taught the world about the world but died before anyone thought he was right.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The Dead Internet conspiracy theory was written with total crackpot paranoid thinking about ruling elites, likely antisemitic undertones, and general tinfoil hat reasoning about AI. Plus generative language models were nowhere near advanced or skilled enough at the time the conspiracy was purported to be happening.

But it was accidentally prophetic in at least two ways by 2024:

  1. Corporations have completely strangled online social spaces to the point that most people only visit about 1 to 3 of them, and
  2. Online discourse in those social spaces has been absolutely captured and manipulated by multiple governments trying to manipulate other countries and stir them into pointless ragebait frenzies.

It wasn't due to the illuminati, the Jews, or anything weird and bigoted conspiracies of old have traditionally blamed. It was thanks to billionaires, corporate and government espionage, AI grifters, and unregulated scammer networks (digital currency counts too) jumping onto the same technology at the same time and ruining everything on the Internet in similar ways.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (6 children)

This is the first I'm hearing of antisemitism being at all related. Where did this come from?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Secret ruling elites is a dog whistle - it's Nazi cabalistic rhetoric. See also Protocols of the Elders of Zion: a Nazi propaganda piece.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Dude. Just take a stroll along X (Twitter) or YouTube comments.

Sooooooo many bots linked to profiles with Ai generated images talking to each other. It's wild.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Many scientific hypotheses started out as what seemed like crazy ideas at the time. When Galileo and Newton challenged the ideas of Aristotle, this was seen as fringe and radical. When Einstein challenged the accepted Newtonian dogma it was seen as scientific heresy at first. These ideas only seem mainstream to us with hindsight.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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

Planck's Principal

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A study of when different geologists accepted plate tectonics found that older scientists actually adopted it sooner than younger scientists. However, a more recent study on life science researchers found that following the deaths of preeminent researchers, publications by their collaborators rapidly declined while the activity of non-collaborators and the number of new researchers entering their field rose.

So, not really accurate. Throw it on the pile with horseshoe theory.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 61 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A lot of science around trees and forest management has gone this way. Forest used to be seen as competitive areas that needed to be thoroughly managed to be healthy. Now we know that’s not true at all, and overall would be better off if we just let them be (in most, though not all cases). Same with the idea that trees communicate with each other and share resources. This was dismissed and ridiculed for a long time, but has now been pretty resoundingly proven true. Peter Wohlleben’s The Secret Life of Trees talks a lot about this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Epigenetics vindicates a small portion of the theory behind Lamarckism, though there’s still a lot of research to be done to understand the actual mechanisms underlying it

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

I'll go with... Probably not a good idea to ingest radium.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (9 children)

You've led me to quite a Christian Scientist rabbit hole, but I cannot for the life of me find the requirement to start smoking. Rereading, is that maybe a typo that should've said they required people to stop smoking? I can't find that either, but it seems to make more sense to me.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Same. All it made me think of was that show The Leftovers (I think??) where you just see clumps of people staring at other characters while dressed all in white and chain-smoking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

You can't stop smoking until you start smoking....

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Kind of a reverse Uno on your question, but I thought it was interesting while Nazism came to prominence, some scientists were like hey I'm just as racist and anti-semitic as you, but this race stuff you're doing isn't very scientific. They were dismissed as quacks. Later after doing horrible experiments, nazi scientists were frustrated that their findings weren't adding up to their ideology.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Quantum Mechanics: The early concepts of quantum mechanics, such as quantized energy levels and wave-particle duality, were initially met with resistance, even by scientists like Albert Einstein, who helped develop them.

Reason for Rejection: The ideas were counterintuitive and challenged classical physics' deterministic view, introducing probabilistic interpretations of nature.

Adoption: The overwhelming experimental evidence, such as the photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, and the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, eventually led to the acceptance of quantum mechanics as a fundamental framework in physics.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Schrödinger's cat was also meant as a rejection of quantum mechanics. Something cannot be both a wave and a partical until observed the same way a cat cannot be both alive and dead until observed. However, it does seem like quantum superposition is a reality, making the thought experiment even more bizarre.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

For us today it may be surprising, but in 1922, Einstein was not awarded for the Relativity theories (SRT 1905, ART 1915) with the Physics Nobel prise 1921, but for his theory on the explanation of the photoelectric effect (1905), as the theory of relativity was still controversially discussed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 113 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Off the top of my head - handwashing before surgery/delivering a baby reducing patient deaths (though you mention germ theory), plate tectonics, the evolution of species, heliocentricism.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

So the answer is "most things".

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

Gah, I was going to say plate tectonics.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›