Let the Kuhn v. Popper debates begin...<p>EDIT: To clarify, using the term "erroneous" under the Kuhnian view (disclaimer, my view), is a bit disingenuous because the criteria under which we are claiming these theories to be wrong did not exist in their historical contexts: on the contrary, some of these theories, such as gravity, happenned to be progressive, brilliant, and in some cases extremely useful as a simplifying framework in the next paradigm. All of the historical and technological ingredients, such as the ability to calculate the speed of light accurately, or Maxwell's equations <i>didn't exist</i> for Newton. Do we call that he missed it an error?<p>In my opinion, "erroneous" as a term should be reserved for beliefs that were incorrect given existing frameworks: Lamarkian evolution, Einstein's cosmological constant, the postulating of the lumeferious ether, Hilbert's axiomatic program that was disproven in his time by Godel...THESE were erroneous.<p>It would be like saying in the future when (hypothetically) a more advanced technology comes along and computes a totally revolutionary and paradigm-shifting scientific framework that our views in 2010 are "erroneous". Probably a little extreme.
I like this one. It almost seems to be a contradict our current education system:<p>"Among cognitive psychologists, there is widespread agreement that people learn best when they are actively engaged with a topic, have to actively problem solve, as we would put it 'construct meaning.' Yet, among individuals young and old, all over the world, there is a view that is incredibly difficult to dislodge. To wit: Education involves a transmission of knowledge/information from someone who is bigger and older (often called 'the sage on the stage') to someone who is shorter, younger, and lacks that knowledge/information. No matter how many constructivist examples and arguments are marshaled, this view — which I consider a misconception — bounces back. And it seems to be held equally by young and old, by individuals who succeeded in school as well as by individuals who failed miserably.<p>Now this is not a scientific misconception in the sense of flat earth or six days of creation, but it is an example of a conception that is extraordinarily robust, even though almost no one who has studied cognition seriously believes it hold water.<p>Let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation for your many contributions to our current thinking."
Very relevant here is Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong:<p><a href="http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm" rel="nofollow">http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm</a><p>HN discussion: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147968" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147968</a>
My maths is pretty rusty but... I think describing Euclidean Geometry as <i>wrong</i> is a bit harsh - it's just the system you get when you treat the Parallel Postulate as axiomatic.<p>If you allow variation in this area you get Elliptical/Hyperbolic geometries - but these extend Euclidean Geometry, they don't invalidate it.
The idea that medieval people believed in a flat Earth is not true. The shape and approximate size of the Earth was knowm since ancient times (3rd century BC).<p>Columbus was not turned down at first because people believed he'd fall off the edge of the Earth; they knew he could not have possibly reached Asia, the distance was too great. It was only pure luck (finding America) that saved him. A venture capitalist in those times would have been rational not to buy into the expedition.<p>As for geocentrism, that has some merits. But note that Ptolemy and his followers were really hindered by a lack of good astronomical data. Using methods of those times, an epicyclical model of the planets was pretty accurate and could have been refined further. The model of Copernicus was deemed superior because it needed fewer epicycles to make the math right. The breakthrough came only after Kepler got the very accurate Huygens observations (taken over 20 years); after he had enough datapoints, he could come up with his famous laws.<p>And so, let's not blame the Ancients right away. They were not as ignorant as we may believe.
The belief that Earth was flat only existed up until around eight thousand years ago, before the institution of anything you could call "science," so I don't even think that one should count.
I don't know how "force of gravity" is a wrong belief but "the only force you are actually feeling is the upward force exerted by your own muscles in order to keep your arm accelerating continuously away from a straight path in spacetime." is correct. can anyone explain?<p>EDIT: my mind is totally blown by this; it put together some pieces of general relativity in a new way for me today. thanks HN!
From the article: "I know a union that got a substantial pay raise because a politician did not understand that adding and then subtracting 20% gets you to another result from the one you started."<p>Wouldn't this be a pay decrease?<p>x * 1.2 = y<p>y * 0.8 < x
I think that one of the interesting threads between contributors to this is the general expression of empathy and consideration for those who espoused or worked towards ideas that were later proven mistaken. An example is Charles Simonyi:<p><i>I think we are all too fast to label old theories "wrong" and with this we weaken the science of today — people say — with some justification from the facts as given to them — that since the old "right" is now "wrong" the "right" of today might be also tainted. I do not believe this — today's "right" is just fine, because yesterday's "wrong" was also much more nuanced "more right" that we are often led to believe.</i>
One belief that wasn't mentioned is the idea of phlogiston. It's the idea that flammable material contains a substance called phlogiston and that the escaping of that substance is equivalent to burning. This believe was held for around a hundred years, from the end of the seventeenth century until the end of the eighteenth century<p>See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory</a>
No mention of the incorrect theories of flight/lift, which are or were very common.<p>Here is a good summary:
<a href="http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html</a>
> that a person who became fat through overeating would thereby have fat children<p>I believe this is actually true. It's called epigenetics, & there was a great StuffYouShouldKnow Podcast about it: <a href="http://castroller.com/podcasts/StuffYouShould/1687893-Can%20your%20grandfathers%20diet%20shorten%20your%20life" rel="nofollow">http://castroller.com/podcasts/StuffYouShould/1687893-Can%20...</a>
The debate as to whether the Earth or sun is the center of the universe was silly. It's all about frames of reference and simplicity of calculations in predicting observations. See "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.
Wave function collapse? <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/q7/if_manyworlds_had_come_first/" rel="nofollow">http://lesswrong.com/lw/q7/if_manyworlds_had_come_first/</a><p>(I don't understand it, but I like it).
<i>Many (but not all) scientists assumed the far side of the moon would turn out to look much the same as the side we are familiar with. [...] And I argued with Hornig [Donald Hornig, Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee] about it and he said, 'Why? It looks just like this side.' And it turned out it didn't."</i><p>I did not know that. How significant is the difference?
I like this one:<p>> Among cognitive psychologists, there is widespread agreement that people learn best when they are actively engaged with a topic, have to actively problem solve, as we would put it 'construct meaning.' Yet, among individuals young and old, all over the world, there is a view that is incredibly difficult to dislodge. To wit: Education involves a transmission of knowledge/information from someone who is bigger and older (often called 'the sage on the stage') to someone who is shorter, younger, and lacks that knowledge/information. No matter how many constructivist examples and arguments are marshaled, this view — which I consider a misconception — bounces back. And it seems to be held equally by young and old, by individuals who succeeded in school as well as by individuals who failed miserably.
Some of my favorite "wrong" or erroneous 'beliefs' (apart from the Flat Earth, and geo-centric beliefs)<p>-- Luminiferous ether: that light propagates via the "ether" medium
-- "Bad air" theory of infectious diseases (which is still held in many countries)
-- "Stress causes ulcers"
-- Leprosy is contagious
-- The belief that first five (or two, or three) years of a child's life determine his/her personality in adulthood. This is one is still widely held and accepted.<p>Oh, and just for kicks: 'Intelligent Design' and its variants. :-)<p>And just to throw it out: What will it take to convince that Global Warming / Climate Change is real? This is perhaps one of the leading least-understood / most controversial beliefs of our times.
Dirichlet used the ~4000 B.c. date for the creation of the Earth in one of his examples of statistical inference. Not sure whether that counts as believing it, though.
I’m shocked that none of the experts mentioned any of widely-held Eastern “scientific beliefs” in dietary supplements, herbal remedies, or reflexology.<p>These are still commonly practiced yet are scientifically proven no more effective than a placebo.
Reading through the list, it shows just what a high standard any current theory must be held to, given the amount of past failures in what are fundamental understandings of the world we inhabit.
The belief in an "Luminiferous aether" for the transmission of radio waves.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether</a>
Hell I can give you currently held beliefs that I can prove wrong:
Global Warming:
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647</a>
Big Bang:
<a href="http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php" rel="nofollow">http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php</a>
Floride is good for you:
<a href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/acute.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/acute.html</a>
Mercury is good for you:
<a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~db=all~jumptype=rss" rel="nofollow">http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~...</a>
Keynesian Economics :
..Just look at the dollar index.