Bit more context:

  • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s a Hexbear user on an alt account, too. No wonder they’re so toxic and condescending everywhere they go.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    At the risk of putting my head in the lion’s mouth, I’m going to disagree with the contention that the newest research is more likely correct. Scientific theories evolve with new information, but the older ones have stood up against rigorous testing. Newton’s concept of physics wasn’t overwritten by Einstein because quantum physics was new. There was truth to Newton’s laws, and Einstein is famous because he took the oldest and most fundamental scientific truths and realized that we had all made the error of perspective. It’s not that Newton was wrong, it was that his ideas were only part of the truth. Relativity is another part of the truth.

    But it wasn’t truer because it was newer. Newton’s truth was as true as Einstein’s. Thousands of physicists and philosophers tried before Einstein to discover flaws in Newtonian physics. Thousands have since tried the same with Einstein, with varying levels of success. You’re correct that the more recent accepted theories are likely to be updated versions of the old theories, but for every new discovery there are millions of intellectual and scientific dead ends.

    Also, for what it’s worth, knowledge is a structure built on a foundation. My job is to teach complex concepts, and the hardest part of the job is determining where to begin. I don’t know what you know, or more importantly what you don’t know you don’t know. Suggesting someone read a book is a way to ensure you and I are at the very least on the same page, pun regrettable but apt.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      On the other hand though, his point still stands. Even einstein recognised that his theory was flawed, which is why he later revised it into the new theory of relativity. Even that was flawed and has since been worked on. Even to this day, we KNOW that the most tested theory ever is flawed, and we hope to one day replace it with a more accurate theory.

      My point being that new research isnt better by nature of being new, its typically better by nature of hindsight. It can hopefully avoid the failings of past research.