Is Science Really Self-Correcting?

I found this today:
from: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2016/04/11/is-science-really-self-correcting/

Long ago, I got into an argument with a "clovis first" professor who really had not kept up with the science.
He said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!"
I said: "Except when they are yours."

Almost daily, I read really crazy stuff fabricated to refute someone else's work.
One recent one is "cranial elasticity" for morphological differences.

Will you look twice and engage in a little skeptical research the next time someone cites Nature?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, science is really self correcting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even if it takes 2 or 3 generations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Potentially, yes -- do you have an example of that? In the case you cited, the total elapsed time between publication and retraction was about two years. That strikes me as being remarkably efficient.

 

The claim that V Gordon Childe's agricultural revolution preceeded monument building by thousands of years.(unless we accept early farming now covered by rising seas .)
And then came Klaus Schmidt's gobekli tepe
and
The clovis first single origin hypotheses(walking to the new world) (from the 1920-30s)which is slowly dissolving as new discoveries' dates are acknowledged.

Do you know of like circumstances in your field of study?

 

Nature, what about Wikipedia or any of way too many other "science" sources that often get cited on this Forum?

I have a feeling that by even broaching the subject on this Forum - it will be considered "Blasphemy" by some Members...

 

Huh? I googled that real quick and couldn't find any references to a problem there. Could you elaborate please.

And that.

"Hypothesis". So, all three of these examples are in anthropology, which by its nature is thin and speculative. Hypotheses aren't testable, per se, they are only verifiable by new discoveries of buried evidence. Yes, it can take a long time to verify or falsify a hypothesis in anthropology. That's an inherent difficulty with anthropology that doesn't apply to the physical sciences and is a well known/understood/accepted limitation that doesn't negate its usefulness as a discipline. So, your thin details aside, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

And should I take these examples as acknowledgment that your first example was a poor one?

I'm an engineer, not a scientist.

 

Who in their right mind would ever call wikipedia a "science source"?

 

FYI Gobeklitepe is monumental architecture dated to 12,000 years ago.
while the neolithic revolution/ (switch to sedentary agricultural life) is estimated to have happened circa 10,000 years ago.

If we use Childe's reasoning, then agriculture should precede Gobeklitepe by 2000-4000 years
For which, there is no archaeological evidence.
We know that sea levels rose rapidly then. So, perhaps such evidence could be found under water on the glacial cycle coastal plains?

 

Many Members on this Forum often Cite Wikipedia to support their "science"...

Perchance you noticed that I put Quotation Marks (" ") around a certain word in my Post?

 

Ok....so what? Are you saying you disagree with the scientific consensus? Are you a phd anthropologist? I'm not either. I don't think we can evaluate if "science" has produced a mistake there.

Frankly, if this is all you have, you are demonstrating very effectively just how few/thin long-standing accuracy issues are!

 

Of course. It's easy. but I doubt anyone is unaware of what wikipedia is.

 

Science and the scientific method is certainly self correcting in the main: That has been proven time and time again down through the ages. It isn't perfect though...what is?
Still, this subject will be like an orgasm to those extreme religious folk and other would be pretenders that like to deride the subject with such cop outs as "pop science" and "it's only a theory" nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

IF we would not question science it would not be any different then a religious organisation . All that prediction coming for the future of hundred year away , were the present generation would not exist or be dead.

 

Science bases those predictions on current data and knowledge along with some speculation based on current data and knowledge: They do not dream up some myth or pull other ideas out of their arse.

 

And of course despite all the whooha and criticism directed at science, there would not be too many who would chose to live in a world without all aspects of science,I bet my short n curlies!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just imagine, no medicine, no phone, no computers, no TV, no radio, no cars buses, trains or ferries....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No knowledge of the Moon, Sun and stars.
Those inclined would be worshiping the Sun, the Moon, Volcanoes, rivers etc, in between swinging from branch to branch....Ahh the joy of it all!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

True! Though since no one would ever be that way, anywhere, ever, I don't see the relevance of pointing it out...

 

Evidently, sculptor, 'some Members' seem neither to have fully read, nor fully understood your OP prior to responding...

 

c'est la vie?

 

Grok'd!