What folks used to think.
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
The date of the book would be a clue as to how serious they took the theory. I would suggest that by 1990 the link between the asteroid and the dinosaur demise was being accepted as a serious theory - although not proven (as is the case even now).
I would guess early 80s. Hopefully they are still within my collection.Halb said:
Eric Mc said:
The date of the book would be a clue as to how serious they took the theory. I would suggest that by 1990 the link between the asteroid and the dinosaur demise was being accepted as a serious theory - although not proven (as is the case even now).
I would guess early 80s. Hopefully they are still within my collection.Derek Smith said:
I see no reason why, in the 200 years that I mentioned, people will not look back at us and laugh at our beliefs with a smug tone. The belief by scientists that they have cracked it has happened time after time. Observations change but theories are evanescent.
We have scientists telling us that 80% of the universe is hidden from us. I feel fairly certain that sooner or later its form will be discovered and when it is a number of theories will take a knock.
Why would they look back and laugh? Nobody's laughing at Newton, or Ptolemy (earth-centred solar system), or Becher (theory of phlogiston), or Lord Kelvin (all sorts of wild notions).We have scientists telling us that 80% of the universe is hidden from us. I feel fairly certain that sooner or later its form will be discovered and when it is a number of theories will take a knock.
Eric Mc said:
Halb said:
Eric Mc said:
The date of the book would be a clue as to how serious they took the theory. I would suggest that by 1990 the link between the asteroid and the dinosaur demise was being accepted as a serious theory - although not proven (as is the case even now).
I would guess early 80s. Hopefully they are still within my collection.Mr2Mike said:
Eric Mc said:
Except that hasn't been proven - and probably never will.
The impact event at Chicxulub has been proven to be almost exactly coincident with the disappearance of Dinosaurs. It's not conclusive I agree, but the evidence is very strong.I'm not saying that the impact WASN'T the reason for the extinction event but what I am saying is that conclusively establishing a direct link may never really be possible.
DocJock said:
Eric Mc said:
Halb said:
Eric Mc said:
The date of the book would be a clue as to how serious they took the theory. I would suggest that by 1990 the link between the asteroid and the dinosaur demise was being accepted as a serious theory - although not proven (as is the case even now).
I would guess early 80s. Hopefully they are still within my collection.
Derek Smith said:
Implicit in this guffaw at how stupid our ancestors were is that in 200 years time our descendents will be doing the same thing about what we believe today.
This thread wasn't about guffawing at the stupidity of people 200 years ago. It was merely about interesting theories that folks came up with, or had at the time. No-one said we are the pinnacle of thought, and no-one suggested that people back then were stupid. Derek Smith said:
Implicit in this guffaw at how stupid our ancestors were is that in 200 years time our descendents will be doing the same thing about what we believe today.
Newton, the great genius, described gravity to the extent that only an idiot would refuse to believe it. Principia was a work of genius. Then along came some clerk.
There is little doubt that we are wrong at the moment on just about everything. Our observations are correct, our interpretations are wrong.
The only saving grace is what will happen in 400 years regarding those who postured and preened themselves in 200 years time.
Haha, yep. This exactly.Newton, the great genius, described gravity to the extent that only an idiot would refuse to believe it. Principia was a work of genius. Then along came some clerk.
There is little doubt that we are wrong at the moment on just about everything. Our observations are correct, our interpretations are wrong.
The only saving grace is what will happen in 400 years regarding those who postured and preened themselves in 200 years time.
See also fashion, computer technology. sport etc.
Well, pretty much everything!
TheHeretic said:
This thread wasn't about guffawing at the stupidity of people 200 years ago. It was merely about interesting theories that folks came up with, or had at the time. No-one said we are the pinnacle of thought, and no-one suggested that people back then were stupid.
Far from stupid there is evidence that they were more intelligent than we are at present.I'm 66. In the years from around my 10th birthday when my brother dragged me into science there have been frequent claims that we have cracked it. We know the basic facts and now all we are doing is refining it. Then some inconvenient discovery would come along, most scientists would treat it with car and then it becomes established, everyone believes it and now all the basic facts are clear and all we have to do now is refine it. It has happened time and again (although not perhaps with climate change).
Newton was a genius. He wrote Principia in the age of horses and carts when they hadn't cracked suspension. It is a towering achievement of mankind. Yet his basic premise, that gravity was an attractive force, was wrong. Or rather, we currently think it is wrong. According to current theory. There is every chance he might be right in the future, at least for a time.
As it is there is a suggestion that we have invented another force. How long before there are more forces than universes?
That's not to deride scientific discovery of course. It is the fact that science proves itself wrong all the time that makes it so believable. The scientific method is remarkable, one of those things that once you understand it it makes you wonder why it wasn't invented in the Garden of Eden. However, can anyone say that in years to come it will not be replaced by some other method of scientific investigation?
I remember one of the news comment programs on TV at the time of cold fusion. They asked this practical scientist a number of questions to which his answers were: 'We don't know', 'We think it might be' and 'It is possible but we can't say'. A proper scientist.
What I meant by my post is that what we think now is 'what folks used to think' next year.
What we know about gravity is that it happens. How it works is debatable.
I used to constantly rebook the dino book out of the mobile library, I was dino obsessed, so eventually, they just let me have it.
Eric Mc said:
Would have been early days for the asteroid theory. I did a bit of a search and the Nova episode I was referring to was first broadcast on 10 March 1981. That was when I first came across the asteroid theory.
Yeah, it was the early 80s, I recall thinking it seemed like the best answer, moreso than some of the (imo) crappy ones.I used to constantly rebook the dino book out of the mobile library, I was dino obsessed, so eventually, they just let me have it.
Eric Mc said:
Some did.
In fact, you could argue that they didn't evolve into birds - but that birds are just a surviving class of dinosaur - which is where I tend to stand on the subject.
The missus and I have come to exactly this conclusion after keeping chickens for a time. Dinosaurs in all but name.In fact, you could argue that they didn't evolve into birds - but that birds are just a surviving class of dinosaur - which is where I tend to stand on the subject.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff