ridiculous statement from Al Gore.
Newton’s theories were “debated” and changed, by Einstein’s theories, which, in turn, were debated and changed by quantum/string theory, etc,
which I’m sure will be debated and changed by another theory.
Actually Newton’s theories were ‘extended’ and not changed. Newtonian physics still stand on a larger physical scale but are not applicable to the atomic scale or to scales involving velocities approaching the speed of light.
Scientists debate theories but hardly ever draw conclusions until measurements clearly reject a theory. Even when measurements support a theory they are reluctant to declare the theory as ‘truth’ (dogma) because there are always details that are not explained or do not fit. So they try to ‘extend’ the theory to fit the data.
But ‘extending’ a theory can also lead to problems such as in ‘evolution’ where the theory becomes so ensconced in scientific circles as to become ‘dogma’. Since the ‘dogma’ is thought to be irrefutable, any unexplained phenomena requires that the dogma be ‘extended’ to include the new unexplained observations. This leads to a fine line with astrology.
Astrology as a system can never be proven false; it is not falsifiable whereas Science is falsifiable. Astrology’s failings must be the fault of the astrologer’s shortcomings in not considering other signs and phases, etc. Not so with science where a failing is not in the scientist but in the hypothesis. However, dogma lies between the two and becomes so adherent that it is considered by some as unfalsifiable, closer to astrology. This is where Gore sits with respect to his dogma of man-made global warming, climate change, whatever.
Not many will challenge scientific dogma unless a disruptive technology permits viewing new data and old data through a different lens. Such was the case with the DNA dogma that has now fractured in to a whole set of new theories, hypotheses and explanations.
Unfortunately we do not yet possess a disruptive technology that allows us to effectively reject permanently the dogma of Gore. There will be warm years head, droughts and skewed data that will allow him to regain lost influence. It does not mean he will be any closer to the truth, in fact barring the necessary technology he will never approximate the truth.
So his is a political stand and he is of course misusing science to gain a political advantage.
That’s why I coined here on FR some years ago the description of Gore as the ‘American Lysenko’.