
The Phlogiston Theory – Wonderfully wrong but fantastically fruitful - Hooke
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/the-phlogiston-theory-wonderfully-wrong-but-fantastically-fruitful/
======
HCIdivision17
I think this compares nicely to Asimov's essay on how wrongness is relative.
In it he argues that as ideas become more accurate, it's not reasonable to say
the predecessors are simply wrong. Likewise, as we develop new ideas, the mass
of invalid ideas is also a part of the foundation that holds up what we now
know. To me, without the contrasting experiments and failed theories, our
current ideas would seem suspiciously successful and lucky; but if we look at
the mountains of counter-results and lame explanations, it's easy to have
confidence that we're at least heading vaguely in the right direction. (And it
also teaches about the hubris of just how much data can match an incorrect
idea!)

[0]
[http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm](http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)

------
thewarrior
One of the more hilarious (in hindsight) explanations of Phlogiston theory is
why a candle eventually goes out if you put a bowl over it.

We now know that it goes out because the reaction runs out of combustible
oxygen. Since according to Phlogiston theory combustion involved a substance
called Phlogiston being given off , they reasoned the candle went out because
a given volume of air could only hold a given amount of Phlogiston.

They even tried to calculate the "maximum capacity of phlogisticated air".

However they weren't entirely wrong they just got it backwards. Phlogiston is
basically minus oxygen. :) . So it spurred research in the right direction and
eventually got us to the "more correct" explanation.

~~~
anon4
So you're saying that in effect "negative phlogiston" is the right theory...

------
david-given
I can strongly recommend Stephen Granades' talk on phlogiston, where he
performs a small experiment to demonstrate its existence:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTD-
vYhwj4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTD-vYhwj4)

See also the sequel (on the luminiferous aether):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpNVG33awq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpNVG33awq4)

~~~
teddyh
You might enjoy these:

[http://dresdencodak.com/2006/08/30/traversing-the-
luminifero...](http://dresdencodak.com/2006/08/30/traversing-the-luminiferous-
aether/)

[http://dresdencodak.com/2009/02/16/exorcising-laplaces-
demon...](http://dresdencodak.com/2009/02/16/exorcising-laplaces-demon/)

------
grabcocque
In addition, many theories have knowledge gaps that scientists are happy to
temporarily plug with placeholders, in the expectation they'll eventually be
filled in with permanent replacements.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two such examples. They're just keeping the
seat warm until we actually have an idea what the hell is going on.

A particularly long lived example was the heredity placeholder in Darwinian
evolution that survived nearly a century before Rosalind Franklin et al.,
finally filled in the gaps.

------
SixSigma
All facts are wrong

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-
life_of_knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge)

------
nextos
It's nice to see Lamarck usually referred to as wrong, as he might still have
a chance to be right.

------
_kst_
An interesting article that would be improved by removing the references to
"gnu atheism" and "scientism".

------
osullivj
Just like phlogiston theory, a software technology can have positive
heuristic, despite being seriously flawed. Like VB for instance...

------
crdoconnor
There are few commonly believed economics concepts which demonstrate a
remarkable resemblance to this.

------
dfc
"gnu atheism"?

~~~
tcdent
Not to be confused with GNU atheism, where one doesn't worship, but uses the
software anyway.

~~~
Xophmeister
You don't have to worship, but are contractually obligated to preach any
changes to the flock.

