Not. The whole flat earth thing is just an example of scientific mythology. Google up flat earth or scientific mythology and you'll find that very few people in those days believed the earth was flat. It was commonly known that the world was round and Scripture was there before the flat earth stuff anyway.
Hmm, who was it that pursued alchemy for hundreds of years to try to turn lead into gold? Oh, right, scientists.
Who was it that laughed at Simmelwies about washing hands to prevent the spread of disease? Oh, right, scientists.
Who was it that thought that blood letting was an acceptable treatment for illnesses?
Who was it who virtually ignored Mendel's initial work because Darwin's ideas had center stage? Oh, right, scientists.
Who was it who denied that the universe had a beginning and advocated the steady state until Hubble's observations FORCED them to admit the inescapable beginning? Oh, right, scientists.
And who's providing the data to challenge anthropogenic global warming? Oh right, scientists again.
The data has always been there. It isn't like scientists are looking for data to disprove it. All people with common sense are doing is pointing out the misinterpretation of the data that has existed all along. Sorry, not the heroes in that one.
Really, the argument that scientists were wrong once so they must be wrong about [fill in what you don't like] is about as lame as they come.
Wrong HOW MANY times? ONCE?!?!? You've got to be kidding.
How many times have scientists "revised" the age of the earth as *new data came in*?
Implying that scientists are wrong once, or rarely, is about as lame as it comes.
They are wrong with astounding regularity and predictability, not to even begin to mention the outright deception and fraud they engage in.
People are skeptical of scientists pronouncements because of the horrendous track record that *science* has. The medical community alone can provide a plethora of examples of that.
I love that old chestnut of the flat earth.
Eratosthenes did his famous experiment and proved the earth round and produced a fairly accurate figure for the size of the earth.
Columbus knew the earth wasn’t flat, in fact, the success of his voyage depended on a spherical earth, though a bit smaller.
And of course fishermen on large bodies of water knew the earth curved away from them at distance so a round earth was rather well known.
What we call "science" today - for thousands of years - was just a part of the general pursuit of knowledge. In Western culture, the early achievements were by philosophers with a particular interest in the physical world. Ditto for mathematical achievements, etc.
The book of Enoch, fragments (DSS) of which have been carbon dated to 200 BC also speaks of orbits.
These would not be called scientists or works of science, except in retrospect.
Moreover, modern science has built a wall around itself, intentionally separating itself from theology, philosophy and mathematics.
Personally, I think they went too far. betty boop mentioned on another thread that of the four Aristotlean causes, modern science has dismissed two - first and final. It excludes purpose on principle as if to presuppose that everything happens by pure, blind chance, etc.
I know the flat earth thing gets overblown, but I didn't bring it up. If it's a myth, then so is gscc's claim that scientists believed it. And I'm not sure what you mean by "in those days"--I didn't specify a time period. I actually had Eratosthenes in mind.
It was commonly known that the world was round and Scripture was there before the flat earth stuff anyway.
Except Scripture is more easily read to be about a flat earth, which is in line with what the local cultures believed at the time.
Hmm, who was it that pursued alchemy for hundreds of years to try to turn lead into gold? Oh, right, scientists.
Actually, it seems that alchemy developed as a philosophy, and it was scientists who put an end to it because they disproved the metal-into-gold part of it.
Who was it that laughed at Simmelwies about washing hands to prevent the spread of disease? Oh, right, scientists.
Right, and that was a mistake. On the other hand, who do we have to thank for the fact that hygiene eventually became accepted? Scientists. Or do you think doctors wash their hands now just because they like the name "Simmelweis"?
Who was it that thought that blood letting was an acceptable treatment for illnesses?
People who weren't practicing scientific medicine. Once the scientific method was applied to medicine, bloodletting fell out of favor.
Who was it who denied that the universe had a beginning and advocated the steady state until Hubble's observations FORCED them to admit the inescapable beginning? Oh, right, scientists.
And what was Hubble? Oh right, a scientist.
They are wrong with astounding regularity and predictability, not to even begin to mention the outright deception and fraud they engage in.
People are skeptical of scientists pronouncements because of the horrendous track record that *science* has.
And yet, here we are living in a world made by science, in which we rely every day on the work of scientists to produce reliable results, and every day it does. You call that a horrendous track record--who has a better one? Can you demonstrate that scientists engage in deception and fraud any more than any other group of people? And furthermore, science has a built-in method for detecting fraud (which, by the way, is the only reason you know about any of it), which most other endeavors do not.
Choosing to reject evolution (to return to the subject of the thread) because "science is wrong all the time" is lame both because science is no less reliable than other paths to understanding (and more reliable than most), and because it's just a way of avoiding thinking for yourself about whether science is wrong this time and if so, why.
speaking of global warming. It's humorous to watch people pretend the only human beings that are always objective or don't allow ideology or polticis or money to influence them are scientists.
Thanks ever so much for your references from the history of science! It was especially interesting to me that you broached the issue of "alchemy."
"Science" as an organized system of inquiry began among the pre-Socratics of ancient Greece. Back in that day (and for about 19 centuries thereafter), it was called "natural philosophy."
Natural philosophy was based on a revolutionary insight: that the physical cosmos, or universe, is a systematic, organized, unitary whole that is such because it is "lawful." Corollary: If it is "lawful," it must be intelligently organized.
Because it is intelligently organized, therefore it is intelligible to human intelligence. So, the job of the natural philosopher was to understand the underlying laws and principles of nature — which job, to him, above all signified the pursuit of the truth of reality for its own sake.
Then along came the alchemists. They were not so much interested in the quest for the truth of reality, but rather in the pursuit of transforming reality in ways conducive/amenable to human desires/purposes.
The word "science" did not enter the English lexicon until the 18th century. I imagine this was a simple acknowledgment of the stripped down form of natural philosophy that you would expect to find if you dump first and final causes as immaterial or irrelevant to the pursuit of true knowledge of nature and the world. Yet Francis Bacon's argument justifying methodological naturalism — which essentially was a reduction of the world to material and efficient causes only, i.e, without reference to matters of "form" or "purpose" in nature — was overwhelmingly persuasive in his time, and continues to bias and bind us today.
Which leads me to ask: Is science supposed to be about disclosing the truths of the universe, or is it only to be about instrumentalizing those "truths" we now possess in ways that response to human desires?
If it ever becomes fully the latter, then it seems to me you can just kiss the former goodbye.
Thank you ever so much, dear metmom, for your excellent essay/post!