Science has come a long way in understanding how our universe works and that road has been full of wrong turns and dead ends. Here are 6 scientific explanations that turned out to be way off track.
Hosted by: Michael Aranda
Head to https://scishowfinds.com/ for hand selected artifacts of the universe!
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Lazarus G, Sam Lutfi, Nicholas Smith, D.A. Noe, سلطان الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, Tim Curwick, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Aristotle was the worst pseudo-scientist, with most of his scientific theories being ridiculous, and yet... he has become more famous than all the great scientists of his time who laid the ground for the world we live in today
Here we are thousands of years later still worshiping aether, only we call it dark matter now.
Can't detect it, can't prove it exists, but science believes in it regardless.
Gee, that sounds a lot like religious faith.
That's the best aspect of science and sets it apart from all other human belief systems, it continually checks and self-corrects. In other belief systems errors are hidden, covered up and witnesses threatened, but science openly examines its past mistakes to learn how we fooled ourselves before to help ensure we don't keep making the same errors again. Science as a model of the world is always approximate and provisional but by checking, cross-checking and openly examining mistakes to learn how to continually improve is the key to its success.
I don't know how you f***ed up explaining Francesco Redi's experiment; but you somehow managed.
In his experiment, the sealed jars didn't have any maggots, the open jars did have maggots, BUT IN THE JARS COVERED IN GAUZE, THEIR WERE NO MAGGOTS. This is important; if only the sealed jars didn't have maggots, then it would have supported that spontaneous generation was possible, but that air was necessary. That lack of maggots in the jars covered in gauze showed that the maggots in the open jars had to have come from the flies that were not able to get pasted the gauze, but could enter the open jars. Their were maggots on the gauze of the jars, but not inside, again presenting the evidence that the maggots came from the flies; the flies could land on the gauze, but could not get past the gauze so could not lay any eggs in the meat below.
He did several more experiments before concluding that all life comes from life.
8:07 "-it shows that some of our scientific missteps aren't complete garbage" What!?! WTF!? Micheal-!! JD-!! I am simply appalled!! Science literally is nothing-but a series of compounded missteps! The entire point is that we compile ever-narrowing scopes of potentials, based around the confines which said missteps have defined! How dare you belittle such vital, idiotic advancements of our hard-working scientists of the past!? I could scarcely believe what I was hearing back there! For shame! Goodness me, guys I'm gettin' the vapors over here, just thinkin' about it...
I wonder...could you take a Jar of Clay and unscrew and crack the lid. Then, speak a lie into the jar and then quickly close it.......according to Stephen Hawkings theories at least some of that lie is now recorded inside the Jar. Food for thought. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
Kaiodon the geology pokemon
pokedex: it is a fusion of groudon and kyogre; it occurs as the bond between kyogre and groudon has been deepend within the mystery dungone universe; this pokemon is like ashgraninja yet like black or white kyurem in it's existence as the geology pokemon of it's world.
This is what I love about science. We get things wrong and can admit it. And it’s okay as long as we keep trying to discover more about our universe. We don’t claim anything as infallible truth and will accept any idea that evidence and data supports. I’m sure that some ideas we generally accept today will be overturned in years to come. It’s to be expected and it’s okay. The SciShow of 2500CE will do a video on some of our “silly” ideas.
that is why you shouldn't believe something in field of science so devotedly just because a famous scientist said so in form of a law
as you can see quantum mechanic wrecks all what scientist believe for hundred of years, just because for all those years they don't have the capability to observe it, and yet for all those years they confidently claim that their law is the best to explain the universe, and way even worse most people in the word treat it as a dogma, and undoubtedly make you look like a fool trying to explore beyond that, saying that what you do is impossible and the result is fake
You know, for the first two, spontaneous generation and aether, those ideas haven't completely gone away, for instance current theory has a hard time explaining how life first got going and so far most instances that are suggested are basically some form of spontaneous generation, further even Steven Hawking seemed to have believe the universe spontaneous created itself. As for aether dark like was mentioned in the video dark energy and dark matter are starting to sound a lot like different forms of aether.
Now I'm with holding judgement on all of the theories I just mentioned... but they these comparisons that seem to so closely match these only discarded theories certainly make me feel like we're missing something in all these instances, makes me excited to think that there might be something we don't know yet to explain them. : )
6 times scientists radically misunderstood the world: name 6 random things in science.
Well, that's my philosophy anyway. Nobody ever really understands anything. The "models" you build in your mind can be more or less efficient in practice, but in the end they are always just approximations, descriptions, not actual insights.
If scientists ever _truly_ understood the nature of the world, instead of just an approximate description of it, we wouldn't have the "big questions in science" that we have, always have had unless we were too arrogant, and possibly will always have.
There's nothing wrong with that. Getting things wrong but being cautious and self-critical is the best way we've found so far to describe reality better and good enough to predict and do stuff we couldn't before.
Now, scientists are humans, and as humans are, they too are petty and arrogant. It is difficult and heavy and scary to face the world and constantly remember that you actually don't know anything for sure ever. So scientists did and will think they do understand much about the world, they will mock ideas they find counter-intuitive even when they don't have any actual evidence gainst them, and so on.
But, interestingly enough, I think we actually need scientists to be somewhat arrogant. People like me, who are often discouraged by the thought of not understanding and not knowing anything, are unlikely to contribute to general knowledge. Even most successful mathematicians are somewhat arrogant and "sloppy", at least in thinking they understand what they talk about.
There are a couple YouTube channels that are actually popular with lots of followers that preach the aether. Even doing experiments to “prove” it exists with tons of people buying into it in the comments but few opposing.
Interesting, but 1 and 2 are not to bee seen with too much talk down.
1) After all, spontaneous generation theory is still the one to be considered today, as long as - whatever the hypothesis you consider panspermia or endospermia - life is supposed to emerge spontaneously out of minerals in a non-stationary universe, in very specific conditions (carbon-rich media, organic precursors, pressure and temperature close to triple point of water, etc) Of course, to a human scale, life doesn't emerge continuously in such a way (unless you watch "Evolution" from Ivan Reimman ;-), but to the age of the Universe scale, this process is surely quite continous. The Miller experiment, as an example, was not quite different from what you show here : he just tested special conditions, but expecting , nothing else than life emerging from a primitive soup...
2) Luminiferous Aether sounds not so far, after all, from Feynman path integrals for a photon in vacuum. As it is shown that to propagate from A to B, a photon (in fact never observable between A and B) in fact dissolves into the Dirac sea and, in there, propagates trhough an infinite variety of pathes in this sea of particles. Of course the Luminiferous Aether was a wrong theory, but the underlying intuition seems not so far to the one of QED findings : to travel, light needs the vacuum to contain an infinite amount of virtual particles. To be honests, Physicits could rename Aether this strange vacuum that needs to be filled up, and even Albert Einstein proposed this...
8:19: You say "Extrapolating backwards that suggested that there was a moment of 'creation' [oops! 😅] that the universe didn't always exist." However, the term 'creation' obviously has religious connotations. Perhaps it 'suggested' such a religious meaning to folks back then (but then again, probably not all scientists), but if that's what was meant, then the script should have corrected this later on in the video, but it doesn't. Might want to issue a correction noting the term should be something more like 'moment of singularity', or to note that while some people initially thought it indicated a 'moment of creation', it's not within the purview of methodological naturalism to jump to that conclusion.
Otherwise, the video could be taken as supporting Creationism, which I'm pretty sure was not your intention. 😊
0.2mm per year seems a implausibly huge. Age of Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, which gives a total increase of 908 ± 10 km since its creation. Compared to the current radius of 6,378.1 km, that's an enormous change — about 14%!
around 11:30 it is stated that the radius of the earth undergoes a "change" of about 0.2 mm per year. it's not specified if this is exclusively growth, but assuming it is, i did some back of the envelope calculations that, if correct, dramatically shift my understanding of our planet and its geometry.
first, 0.2 mm per year, over 4.5 billion years (the amount of time i understand the "earth" to have "existed"), comes to 9 x 10^8 mm, or 900 km (please stop me at any point if my calculations are wrong). if the "change" is only growth and the earth's current radius is 6371 km (found from cursory google search), that means that the earth had a radius around 5471 km at the time it is commonly said to have "begun." there are a lot of questions that arise from this idea. eg, if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, how is its beginning as a planet marked? or, if its existence extends into the supposed 7 billion year time frame that our solar system has been around (layering in more questions of the demarcation of beginnings and origins), does that 0.2 mm per year change extend all the way back until the earth was nothing more than an incongruence in the density of the gas and dust that would form a locus for our would-be planet?
moving forward, questions unanswered, i did some simple geometric calculations, assuming the earth is a sphere and the change was exclusively growth. at a current radius of 6371 km, the surface area of the planet should be around 510 million square km. this is supported by wolfram alpha, which provides a value for earth's surface area of 5.1 x 10^8 square km. if the earth has been adding an average of 0.2 mm per year to its radius and was, therefore, 5471 km 4.5 billion years ago, the surface area of the earth when it "began" was about 376 million square km.
the difference in surface area is 134 million square km. that's more than a fourth of earth's total current surface area. granted, this does not account for the oceans by a long stretch, as suggested by the early hypothesis discussed in the video (though it is coincidentally very close the total area of the planet not covered by water - tangent question, are continental plates in some part a result of buildup from accumulated debris from the solar system over earth's span of existance?).
i do not mean to suggest that the growing planet hypothesis supplants plate techtonics, but this seems like a significant change in size that simply isn't discussed when we talk about the geometry, geology, and history of the planet. it also raises many questions: was the earth's surface area 134 million sq km, roughly 26%, smaller 4.5 billion years ago? was earth's radius only about 86% of its current dimension? was the "change" discussed continual growth, and if so, growth over what amount of time? did i grossly miscalculate somewhere along the way, leading me to errant conclusions?
Earth grows 0.2 mm a day? That's 800 km in 4 billion years! It could explain a river. Or a lake. It's so much that a one could maybe with a bit of a squint, see the difference by naked eye comparisson of baby earth and today's earth (near-death earth) from orbit.
"don't always get it right the first time"? I beg to differ, SciShow. Science is the process of knowing you NEVER get it right, your understanding just gets better in jumps. Newton didn't get it right, he just got it clearer than before. Einstein isn't completely right, just right until you get to the quantum realm. Be more careful about your wording or you'll have a bunch of misinformed people who think they are "right" is an absolute sense.
A lot of these ideas where not dead ends but stepping stones towards a greater understanding. Even something like luminiferous Aether was a step in the right direction of sorts. At least by trying to prod the Aether we figured out what was really going on.
(Well.. Actually there still some thing we do not know. But we came closer to a more complete understanding!)
Maybe it's just me, but I have to say that, while I really like the information, I don't quite like the tones of these videos because I think it puts more emphasis on how these scientists got it wrong rather than on the beauty that is the falsifiability principle. The tones here seem to be shaming those scientists for not getting the right answer rather than communicating that science doesn't require that all the answers be right all of the time.
Thanks for explaining the expanding Earth theory and why it was wrong. I came across the idea a long time ago and could never find a short, to the point reasoning why it was completely wrong. I don't claim to be a smart man, but my appreciation for so easily smacking down a disproved theory hopefully won't go in vain.
Spontaneous Generation was only briefly defeated as a theory. Note how the universe and all life are now believed to have spontaneously generated under the current consensus of Big Bang Theory and Evolution based on sub-atomic particulate motion, and Speciation.
Looks like scientists of today have failed to learn from the lessons of History and now tout narratives contrary to their own evidences through using unrelated premises as "proofs" through peer approved, but illogical interpretations.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.