The Phlogiston Theory – Wonderfully wrong but fantastically fruitful(thonyc.wordpress.com)
thonyc.wordpress.com
The Phlogiston Theory – Wonderfully wrong but fantastically fruitful
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/the-phlogiston-theory-wonderfully-wrong-but-fantastically-fruitful/
10 comments
One of the more hilarious (in hindsight) explanations of Phlogiston theory is why a candle eventually goes out if you put a bowl over it.
We now know that it goes out because the reaction runs out of combustible oxygen. Since according to Phlogiston theory combustion involved a substance called Phlogiston being given off , they reasoned the candle went out because a given volume of air could only hold a given amount of Phlogiston.
They even tried to calculate the "maximum capacity of phlogisticated air".
However they weren't entirely wrong they just got it backwards. Phlogiston is basically minus oxygen. :) . So it spurred research in the right direction and eventually got us to the "more correct" explanation.
We now know that it goes out because the reaction runs out of combustible oxygen. Since according to Phlogiston theory combustion involved a substance called Phlogiston being given off , they reasoned the candle went out because a given volume of air could only hold a given amount of Phlogiston.
They even tried to calculate the "maximum capacity of phlogisticated air".
However they weren't entirely wrong they just got it backwards. Phlogiston is basically minus oxygen. :) . So it spurred research in the right direction and eventually got us to the "more correct" explanation.
So you're saying that in effect "negative phlogiston" is the right theory...
I can strongly recommend Stephen Granades' talk on phlogiston, where he performs a small experiment to demonstrate its existence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTD-vYhwj4
See also the sequel (on the luminiferous aether):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpNVG33awq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTD-vYhwj4
See also the sequel (on the luminiferous aether):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpNVG33awq4
Thanks for these -- the aether one is hilarious.
In addition, many theories have knowledge gaps that scientists are happy to temporarily plug with placeholders, in the expectation they'll eventually be filled in with permanent replacements.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two such examples. They're just keeping the seat warm until we actually have an idea what the hell is going on.
A particularly long lived example was the heredity placeholder in Darwinian evolution that survived nearly a century before Rosalind Franklin et al., finally filled in the gaps.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two such examples. They're just keeping the seat warm until we actually have an idea what the hell is going on.
A particularly long lived example was the heredity placeholder in Darwinian evolution that survived nearly a century before Rosalind Franklin et al., finally filled in the gaps.
All facts are wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge
It's nice to see Lamarck usually referred to as wrong, as he might still have a chance to be right.
An interesting article that would be improved by removing the references to "gnu atheism" and "scientism".
Just like phlogiston theory, a software technology can have positive heuristic, despite being seriously flawed. Like VB for instance...
There are few commonly believed economics concepts which demonstrate a remarkable resemblance to this.
"gnu atheism"?
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Gnu_Atheists
"Gnu Atheists is a pun on the label New Atheists that quickly took on a life of its own. As a pun, it is equivalent in meaning to New Atheists, and the two can be substituted for each other anywhere they occur."
"Gnu Atheists is a pun on the label New Atheists that quickly took on a life of its own. As a pun, it is equivalent in meaning to New Atheists, and the two can be substituted for each other anywhere they occur."
Not to be confused with GNU atheism, where one doesn't worship, but uses the software anyway.
You don't have to worship, but are contractually obligated to preach any changes to the flock.
I gather that this is a particular brand of atheism which is obsessive to an obnoxious degree at trying to smash everyone else's religious beliefs.
[0] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm