The Speculist

Phil:

I think a big reason that we are experiencing such rapid progress is that our illusions of knowledge tend to be short lived.

Before any scientific theory will be taken seriously it undergoes peer review. This isn't a perfect process (as some recent studies on the subject have shown) but peer review tends to subject an idea to scrutiny from many directions.

An idea tends to be accepted only if it offers a believeable explanation of things within the context of what we (think we) know about other things. Sometimes an idea is so revolutionary it dismantles old ideas. Truly challenging ideas get a harder look than obvious extensions of accepted theories.

Its quite possible - probable - that some important ideas of science are just flat wrong. But the only reason that an idea becomes "important" is because it explains observations well and others are able to build on it. Ideas that are wrong tend to fail quickly under this weight.

...but not always.

Good points, Stephen. Clearly we have gotten better over the centuries at sorting out what we think we know from what we know we know.

Still, I can't help but wonder whether centuries -- or even decades from now -- we will look back on things like String Theory the way we currently regard some of the fanciful and erroneous maps of "the world" drawn up in ancient times.

“It ain't what you don't know that'll hurt you but what you do know that JUST AIN'T SO.”

Artemus Ward