On: Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong

[3825]

I have a more than small problem with the use of the phrase scientific theory[1] which to me is something provable.

>A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.[2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[2]: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

[jonhendry → 3825]

I'm not sure how you'd prove the theory that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, short of taking the rectal temp of a Stegosaur.

But you could falsify the theory by finding characteristics incompatible with being exothermic. Finding the dinosaurs with feathers and other characteristics of the (warm-blooded) birds probably helped, too.

Some of the "incorrect facts" are really theories that were substantiated to the best degree possible at the time, and no falsifying evidence existed at the time.

I suspect some, like "non-functional junk DNA", is a case of scientific qualifiers being ignored in the mainstream media and forgotten.

Humans like "facts", but we inevitably drop the error bars that originally accompanied each new "fact".