
Wrong scientific beliefs that were held for long periods - muon
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge333.html
======
siglesias
Let the Kuhn v. Popper debates begin...

EDIT: To clarify, using the term "erroneous" under the Kuhnian view
(disclaimer, my view), is a bit disingenuous because the criteria under which
we are claiming these theories to be wrong did not exist in their historical
contexts: on the contrary, some of these theories, such as gravity, happenned
to be progressive, brilliant, and in some cases extremely useful as a
simplifying framework in the next paradigm. All of the historical and
technological ingredients, such as the ability to calculate the speed of light
accurately, or Maxwell's equations _didn't exist_ for Newton. Do we call that
he missed it an error?

In my opinion, "erroneous" as a term should be reserved for beliefs that were
incorrect given existing frameworks: Lamarkian evolution, Einstein's
cosmological constant, the postulating of the lumeferious ether, Hilbert's
axiomatic program that was disproven in his time by Godel...THESE were
erroneous.

It would be like saying in the future when (hypothetically) a more advanced
technology comes along and computes a totally revolutionary and paradigm-
shifting scientific framework that our views in 2010 are "erroneous". Probably
a little extreme.

~~~
verroq
>the postulating of the lumeferious ether

Fairly sure that's the just a progressive step towards Einstein's model.

It is difficult to define wrong in a scientific context since everything is
just model that matches observations. Of course, as more observations come,
models will be naturally disproved. That doesn't mean they were wrong for the
entirety of their existence which I think was your point, but you haven't
applied it to the examples you raised.

In the example of ether, It was believed to be permeate all matter and the
medium for light to travel through. It explained all observations at that time
until the Michelson-Morley experiment which settled it.

~~~
siglesias
I agree that wrong is difficult to define in these contexts, but remember that
the only proof of the existence of the ether was that 1) light was thought to
be a wave by the mathematical formulation of Maxwell, and 2) all known waves
had a physical medium. That's it. It was a very ad hoc construction that
immediately presented ways to test it. When it was tested by the MM
experiment, it turned out to be undetectable at best, thereby exposing its
weakness as a theory. Einstein didn't use the theory as a springboard because
it was so good and useful; he used it as a springboard because it was so
_bad_.

------
j_baker
I like this one. It almost seems to be a contradict our current education
system:

"Among cognitive psychologists, there is widespread agreement that people
learn best when they are actively engaged with a topic, have to actively
problem solve, as we would put it 'construct meaning.' Yet, among individuals
young and old, all over the world, there is a view that is incredibly
difficult to dislodge. To wit: Education involves a transmission of
knowledge/information from someone who is bigger and older (often called 'the
sage on the stage') to someone who is shorter, younger, and lacks that
knowledge/information. No matter how many constructivist examples and
arguments are marshaled, this view — which I consider a misconception —
bounces back. And it seems to be held equally by young and old, by individuals
who succeeded in school as well as by individuals who failed miserably.

Now this is not a scientific misconception in the sense of flat earth or six
days of creation, but it is an example of a conception that is extraordinarily
robust, even though almost no one who has studied cognition seriously believes
it hold water.

Let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation for your many
contributions to our current thinking."

~~~
dkarl
That one sounds rather argumentative. He's taking conventional wisdom about
learning (active engagement, problem solving) that is accepted dogma among
practicing teachers (at least in U.S. primary and secondary schools) and
trying to paint it as a minority view. Without hearing some evidence for the
robustness of the "transmission" idea, I'm tempted to dismiss this as a
rhetorical trick. I suspect there are some popular classroom practices he
disagrees with, and he's trying to stigmatize them by linking them to an old,
discredited idea.

~~~
johnzabroski
U.S. primary and secondary schools do not accept the constructivist school as
dogma. Perhaps you have simply misunderstood the differences he was stressing.

For more information on this, you should probably look at what Seymour Papert
has been doing in Maine lately.

~~~
dkarl
What he _said_ was "people learn best when they are actively engaged with a
topic, have to actively problem solve, as we would put it 'construct
meaning.'" That isn't controversial _at all_ , which is why I suspect it's a
rhetorical trick. Scratch the surface and ask him why he thinks teachers
really don't believe in it (which they all claim to do) and I'm guessing he'll
say they don't believe it because they don't accept some other ideas (the
entire dogma of the constructivist school, perhaps?) which _he_ thinks are
consequences of believing in engaged, active learning.

In other words, he's saying Y follows from X, so if you don't accept Y then
you don't believe X. It's the same rhetorical device as saying, "Nobody cares
about civil liberties anymore [because George Bush got re-elected]," or "I
guess nobody else here loves his country [because I'm the only one who went to
the Tea Party rally last weekend]."

It's always easier to stick up for a vague but popular concept (such as
liberty, love of country, or active, engaged learning) than to argue in favor
of the controversial concrete policies you think follow from it.

------
jpablo
Very relevant here is Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong:

<http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm>

HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147968>

------
arethuza
My maths is pretty rusty but... I think describing Euclidean Geometry as
_wrong_ is a bit harsh - it's just the system you get when you treat the
Parallel Postulate as axiomatic.

If you allow variation in this area you get Elliptical/Hyperbolic geometries -
but these extend Euclidean Geometry, they don't invalidate it.

~~~
lkrubner
"Wrong" might overstate it, but certainly, for a long time Euclidean Geometry
was thought to be a statement about an absolute truth that existed in the
Universe. There could be no other geometry. Recall the shock and dismay with
which the educated public first heard about hyperbolic geometry. If math is
always true, they wondered, then how could another geometry exist alongside
Euclidean Geometry? It was as if reality had been disproven. It took a long
time for the educated public to come round to the view that we could have
multiple geometries, each true for certain given assumptions.

~~~
arethuza
That is, of course, correct - but surely that is more how Euclidean Geometry
was interpreted rather than there actually being an internal problem with
Euclidean Geometry.

~~~
Jach
Wouldn't this be a case of Newtonian mechanics as well? There's nothing
"wrong" with the math, other than it doesn't fully explain reality like we
initially thought it did, and so the theory is wrong. A lot less wrong than
anything we had before, but still wrong.

~~~
arethuza
But don't all theories of the physical world come with caveats and assumptions
attached? In the case of Newtonian mechanics it is clear that there are cases
(the very small, the very fast) where it doesn't apply - but that doesn't mean
it isn't useful in more normal contexts.

I seem to recall (I could well be wrong) that the calculations for the Voyager
space probes are all done using Newtonian mechanics. For something to be wrong
implies to me that it is of no utility - which clearly isn't the case with
Newtons work.

~~~
Jach
Exactly, which is why I was wondering why you'd hesitate to call Euclidean
geometry wrong when, asked to explain reality, it fails to do so. But it seems
we're operating under quite different definitions of wrong. (Whose utility are
you basing your definition on? For me there are plenty of obviously wrong
things that nevertheless can be useful for me or someone else.) I lump myself
in the Asimov crowd of "wrongness", which is linked on this page. (Hey, a
flat-earth theory works in limited cases too.)

~~~
arethuza
I think it's the term "wrong" is what I object to - Newtonian mechanics is
still perfectly "correct" for a large number of circumstances. Just because a
more refined, and rather more complex theory, comes along a few centuries
later doesn't invalidate the fact that if you stay within the boundaries of
the where it is known to be perfectly valid it is the best thing to use.

When you model some physical system you do it with and end in mind and a lot
of assumptions have to be made (e.g. that gas flow is non-turbulent, heat flow
is uniform) which are all _wrong_ in some sense because reality isn't like
that but if you didn't make these simplifying assumptions then you'd never get
anything done.

Mathematical models aren't reality - they are an attempt to create structures
that allow us to explain and predict and the assumptions underlying the
mappings between these structures and reality are just as important as the
contents of the theories themselves. It's possible to model the same system in
umpteen different ways - indeed as there is no all encompassing theory-of-
absolutely-everything you have to make some important decisions when you model
something as to what is relevant. Trying to model plate tectonics in terms of
string theory is unlikely to get you very far - that doesn't make string
theory "wrong".

------
iwr
The idea that medieval people believed in a flat Earth is not true. The shape
and approximate size of the Earth was knowm since ancient times (3rd century
BC).

Columbus was not turned down at first because people believed he'd fall off
the edge of the Earth; they knew he could not have possibly reached Asia, the
distance was too great. It was only pure luck (finding America) that saved
him. A venture capitalist in those times would have been rational not to buy
into the expedition.

As for geocentrism, that has some merits. But note that Ptolemy and his
followers were really hindered by a lack of good astronomical data. Using
methods of those times, an epicyclical model of the planets was pretty
accurate and could have been refined further. The model of Copernicus was
deemed superior because it needed fewer epicycles to make the math right. The
breakthrough came only after Kepler got the very accurate Huygens observations
(taken over 20 years); after he had enough datapoints, he could come up with
his famous laws.

And so, let's not blame the Ancients right away. They were not as ignorant as
we may believe.

~~~
fhars
Reasonable people thought that the ocean (without america, there would be no
separate atlantic and pacific ocean) was considerably smaller than it really
is, not least due to the impossibility to reliably measure longitude, so they
vastly overestimated the east-west extension of eurasia. Just look at the
globes Behaim made in 1491-1493 (based on data by Pope Sixtus IV) which shows
a really small ocean:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Behaim#The_Erdapfel>

According to the best contemporary data, the investment would have been highly
speculative (as all voyages across the sea), but not insanely so.

------
baddox
The belief that Earth was flat only existed up until around eight thousand
years ago, before the institution of anything you could call "science," so I
don't even think that one should count.

~~~
KaeseEs
I was really disappointed to see that sort of thing mentioned; I had been
hoping for better, more wild-goose-chase-y examples where the wrong hypothesis
was compelling and consistent with equations that accurately modeled reality -
things like the luminiferous ether, which yielded the accurate Lorentz
equations, and the caloric theory of heat which yielded many accurate
equations and experimental results (indeed, its fluid model of heat is so
parallel to reality that you probably recall your mechanical engineer friends
at school taking "thermals and fluids" classes). The Earth being flat was
debunked the first time someone saw a boat come in to pier and is thoroughly
uninteresting.

~~~
Natsu
Well, what about the notion of a fixed earth around which other things rotate?
Granted, this gets fuzzy about how wrong it is when you consider that there's
no absolute reference frame, but if you read history, you'll find out that the
reason they couldn't believe that the earth was moving was that they could not
measure the stellar parallax. In other words, they knew that the stars should
appear to shift a little if the earth was moving. Yes, they do in fact shift,
but they're so many light years away that it took a long time before anyone
came up with anything that could measure it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Well, what about the notion of a fixed earth around which other things
rotate?

As you, and relativity, say - it's not wrong to choose an arbitrary fixed
point.

>it took a long time before anyone came up with anything that could measure
[stellar parallax]

Indeed, the Pythagoreans assumed terrestrial motion (according to Copernicus)
just as others assumed opposite. Neither assumption is bad, neither is worse
given that there was no obtainable evidence to support either position at the
time.

------
rubyrescue
I don't know how "force of gravity" is a wrong belief but "the only force you
are actually feeling is the upward force exerted by your own muscles in order
to keep your arm accelerating continuously away from a straight path in
spacetime." is correct. can anyone explain?

EDIT: my mind is totally blown by this; it put together some pieces of general
relativity in a new way for me today. thanks HN!

~~~
michael_nielsen
The "force" of gravity is not a fundamental concept in general relativity.

Here's a way of thinking about what's going on.

Consider a large mass, like the Earth. That mass curves spacetime in the
vicinity of the Earth. A small object, like a satellite, simply moves
completely freely in a "straight line" (i.e., geodesic path) according to that
curved geometry. The curved geometry is such that those geodesics are just the
satellite orbits that we see. In other words, the satellite isn't affected by
any "force", it's just moving in a straight line in a geometry that happens to
be curved, so we see it doing circles around the Earth.

It's exceedingly neat: in John Wheeler's great phrase, matter tells spacetime
how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move. No forces required! Of
course, after the fact you can tack on a notion of "force", but it's in no way
fundamental.

Same thing is going on with projectile motion here on Earth.

Once you internalize this point of view, the statement about holding your arm
in place becomes a lot clearer. The "natural" force-free thing your arm wants
to do is to move along geodesics of spacetime, which means falling toward the
Earth at an acceleration of g. But if we exert a (muscular) force to keep it
up, then we can hold it in place. In short, in this point of view, forces are
things which cause deviations from geodesic motion.

~~~
zach
As far as simple visual illustrations go, this is the best I've seen:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-p8yZYxNGc#t=6m31>

~~~
natep
What's always bothered me about these kinds of animations is that there is a
grid of straight lines, but none of the objects actually follow these grid
lines. Instead, the geodesics they follow are determined by the topology of
the deformed surface, invoking the viewer's intuitive understanding of
gravity...in order to understand the unintuitive formulation of it.

But, as you say, I haven't seen better.

------
brockf
From the article: "I know a union that got a substantial pay raise because a
politician did not understand that adding and then subtracting 20% gets you to
another result from the one you started."

Wouldn't this be a pay decrease?

x * 1.2 = y

y * 0.8 < x

~~~
dkersten
True. 20% of y is larger than 20% of x (which is what was added to x to obtain
y) because y is a larger number. Therefore subtracting 20% of y from y will
give you some value smaller than x. Eg: 100 + 20% = 120; 120 - 20% = 96.

Not that anyone here needs an explanation :)

------
adolph
I think that one of the interesting threads between contributors to this is
the general expression of empathy and consideration for those who espoused or
worked towards ideas that were later proven mistaken. An example is Charles
Simonyi:

 _I think we are all too fast to label old theories "wrong" and with this we
weaken the science of today — people say — with some justification from the
facts as given to them — that since the old "right" is now "wrong" the "right"
of today might be also tainted. I do not believe this — today's "right" is
just fine, because yesterday's "wrong" was also much more nuanced "more right"
that we are often led to believe._

------
evandijk70
One belief that wasn't mentioned is the idea of phlogiston. It's the idea that
flammable material contains a substance called phlogiston and that the
escaping of that substance is equivalent to burning. This believe was held for
around a hundred years, from the end of the seventeenth century until the end
of the eighteenth century

See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory>

------
ottbot
No mention of the incorrect theories of flight/lift, which are or were very
common.

Here is a good summary:
<http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html>

------
kadavy
> that a person who became fat through overeating would thereby have fat
> children

I believe this is actually true. It's called epigenetics, & there was a great
StuffYouShouldKnow Podcast about it:
[http://castroller.com/podcasts/StuffYouShould/1687893-Can%20...](http://castroller.com/podcasts/StuffYouShould/1687893-Can%20your%20grandfathers%20diet%20shorten%20your%20life)

------
amichail
The debate as to whether the Earth or sun is the center of the universe was
silly. It's all about frames of reference and simplicity of calculations in
predicting observations. See "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard
Mlodinow.

~~~
Retric
People prefer a simplified view of history where people where dumb and
ignorant even if it's often proven wrong. The reality is reasonably correct
interpretations / ideas are often replaced by misinformation for long periods
of time. The most obvious example is how do you lose a city. But, something as
simple as crop rotation is often found, then lost then found again.

For a more popular example, two thousand years ago many people thought the
earth was round based on a wide range of evidence. They even calculated the
size of the earth with a fair amount of precision. A more striking example a
scurvy cure was found, then lost and then found again over hundreds of years.
<http://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm>

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
Might that not be because people were illiterate and any permanent record was
very rare indeed?

Perhaps people were indeed dumb and ignorant. If no one told you all of these
things since birth, would you have any idea that the earth goes around the
moon. Supposing you are a knight, a farmer, a priest, a whatever, rather than
someone dedicating yourself to the study of the stars, and no one told you
ever that the earth goes around the sun, or even moves, would you ever find
out or know at all and would you not believe the priest or whoever seems to
know about the subject.

It is not that people are dumb. They just do not know. A doctor can tell me
whatever he likes that sounds reasonable and as I would have no option I would
believe him.

~~~
Retric
The most educated have learned quite a bit, but once you start talking about
average populations you find a higher percentage of people in the US belied in
evolution 100 years ago than do today.

And when you start taking about actual numbers you find that there are over a
billion people that can't read living in the world today. Heck, due to the
population increase there are probably more people in the world today that
believe the world is flat than did in the 300 BC and there pictures of the
thing.

------
jodrellblank
Wave function collapse?
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/q7/if_manyworlds_had_come_first/>

(I don't understand it, but I like it).

------
Evgeny
_Many (but not all) scientists assumed the far side of the moon would turn out
to look much the same as the side we are familiar with. [...] And I argued
with Hornig [Donald Hornig, Chairman of the President's Science Advisory
Committee] about it and he said, 'Why? It looks just like this side.' And it
turned out it didn't."_

I did not know that. How significant is the difference?

~~~
zephyrfalcon
See for example <http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/clementine/images/>

esp.
[http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/clementine/images/img...](http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/clementine/images/img5_lg.gif)

------
kadavy
I like this one:

> Among cognitive psychologists, there is widespread agreement that people
> learn best when they are actively engaged with a topic, have to actively
> problem solve, as we would put it 'construct meaning.' Yet, among
> individuals young and old, all over the world, there is a view that is
> incredibly difficult to dislodge. To wit: Education involves a transmission
> of knowledge/information from someone who is bigger and older (often called
> 'the sage on the stage') to someone who is shorter, younger, and lacks that
> knowledge/information. No matter how many constructivist examples and
> arguments are marshaled, this view — which I consider a misconception —
> bounces back. And it seems to be held equally by young and old, by
> individuals who succeeded in school as well as by individuals who failed
> miserably.

------
A_A
Some of my favorite "wrong" or erroneous 'beliefs' (apart from the Flat Earth,
and geo-centric beliefs)

\-- Luminiferous ether: that light propagates via the "ether" medium \-- "Bad
air" theory of infectious diseases (which is still held in many countries) \--
"Stress causes ulcers" \-- Leprosy is contagious \-- The belief that first
five (or two, or three) years of a child's life determine his/her personality
in adulthood. This is one is still widely held and accepted.

Oh, and just for kicks: 'Intelligent Design' and its variants. :-)

And just to throw it out: What will it take to convince that Global Warming /
Climate Change is real? This is perhaps one of the leading least-understood /
most controversial beliefs of our times.

~~~
iwr
Leprosy is slightly contagious, but significant over very long exposures.

------
Estragon
Dirichlet used the ~4000 B.c. date for the creation of the Earth in one of his
examples of statistical inference. Not sure whether that counts as believing
it, though.

------
joshcrews
This is a great reminder to have skepticism and humility about current
scientific beliefs that are so widely accepted they are axioms today.

------
grandalf
The problem doesn't have to do with human rationality, but has to do with
human subservience to authority.

------
mcritz
I’m shocked that none of the experts mentioned any of widely-held Eastern
“scientific beliefs” in dietary supplements, herbal remedies, or reflexology.

These are still commonly practiced yet are scientifically proven no more
effective than a placebo.

~~~
khafra
Many herbs are pharmacologically active, to the point of being dangerous if
taken in conjunction with OTC or prescription medication. Rhino horn and
reflexology do seem to belong in the "bogus belief" category.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
If they are dangerous, they might, or at least some of them might, be
beneficial no?

~~~
mcritz
Scientifically proven beneficial substances are called medicines. They are FDA
approved for the purpose of treatment.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
are you suggesting that all the herbs and whatever the chinese use have been
tested for all the known diseases?

------
brc
Reading through the list, it shows just what a high standard any current
theory must be held to, given the amount of past failures in what are
fundamental understandings of the world we inhabit.

------
ranprieur
I wonder what beliefs we have now that will be ridiculed in 500 years.

~~~
Avshalom
I don't know about ridiculed but once quantum gravity gets sorted out there is
a good chance that either relativity or quantum mechanics is going to be
"wrong" in the sense the Newtonian sense of "inaccurate at X scale."

------
jeffreymcmanus
It's interesting that "stress causes ulcers" keeps coming up again and again,
this one is clearly a favorite among a lot of scientists.

------
known
One more is _God == Religion_

------
J3L2404
The belief in an "Luminiferous aether" for the transmission of radio waves.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether>

------
senki
The worse belief is that science has anything to do with belief. Or, I believe
so...

~~~
vibragiel
I think Edge picked a very bad word. Isn't "scientific belief" is a silly
oxymoron?

At least, many of those "beliefs" weren't actually beliefs, but scientific
theories that worked very well but were later improved. It's the case of
Newtonian gravitational force.

~~~
michael_dorfman
_Isn't "scientific belief" is a silly oxymoron?_

Not at all. At least, not if you are interested in epistemology. In fact, one
common definition of knowledge is "justified true belief." Cf
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief>

~~~
boredguy8
That's not a common definition held in epistemology: The Gettier problem
decimated that view a while ago.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem>

~~~
philwelch
But only the "justified" part. Truth and belief are still necessary
conditions.

~~~
boredguy8
You're missing the points, which are:

A) "Justified true belief" as the criterion for knowledge is not common in
epistemology, contra the initial comment;

b) "Scientific belief" is an odd term given that you either have "knowledge"
or you have "false beliefs" based on best available science.

~~~
philwelch
What point am I missing? Clearly, the definition of "scientific belief" used
in this context is something like "belief held by people in the scientific
community". The central point here seems to be that, while "belief" may have a
connotation of something that is lacking evidence, it's in fact a far more
general term that applies even to genuine knowledge.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>the definition of "scientific belief" used in this context is something like
"belief held by people in the scientific community"

I hope not. The definition of "scientific belief" is belief in something
supported by a scientific method. Put another way formally and rigorously
established based on agreed axioms.

Being a scientist doesn't make your belief that you're Imhotep reincarnated a
scientific belief.

~~~
philwelch
_The definition of "scientific belief" is belief in something supported by a
scientific method._

How many examples on the OP did you read? How many of those examples were
supported by a scientific method? (Probably some, but not all.) I think my
definition better suits the context, quibbling aside.

------
davidj
Hell I can give you currently held beliefs that I can prove wrong: Global
Warming: <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647> Big
Bang: <http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php> Floride is good for
you: <http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/acute.html> Mercury is
good for you:
[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~...](http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~db=all~jumptype=rss)
Keynesian Economics : ..Just look at the dollar index.

