And what if there is a discovery tomorrow that undos all that knowledge even though we have hundreds of years saying it’s true, OK so now you get it or do I have to explain further?
Please explain further.
As of today when someone has a bacterial infection you have a direct evidence of it, you use an antibiotic, you kill the bacteria, you cure the illness. No miasmia, humors or worms involved.
It’s like you are saying we have a space photo for a round earth but what if a discovery undo it tomorrow.
The idea is that theories have considerable evidence and are consistent with all testing done up to that point. (Warning: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL ONLY) But what if we found out tomorrow that if you put bacteria in an environment with a specific magnetic field, they no longer caused disease and they end up finding out that bacteria poop has magnetize structures of the cell and cause diseases. That antibiotics have the magnetized structures with the opposite polarity that counteract the bacteria poop. Or some shit like that. This would contradict our current understanding of germ theory and it would be proven to be wrong or at least incomplete.
That is why theories are not “proven” because they are ALWAYS open to better explanation if one can be provided. That being said, it is highly unlikely that any well established, defined and tested theory will ever be “disproven” wholecloth, becuase it has always been consistent with observations. Germs are real, disease is clearly related to them in some way, specific germs cause specific reactions in our bodies, etc. But we could always be partially wrong about something, or have an incomplete explanation.
EDIT: for you people down voting, you know you are defending the conclusions of science while misunderstanding the very nature of the scientific method. Science is not dogma. It is a method of continuous improvement. If evidence contradicts current understanding, science learns from it and adapts accordingly. That is what makes Science trustworthy, it does not put conclusion before the evidence. Don’t make that same mistake.
And what if there is a discovery tomorrow that undos all that knowledge even though we have hundreds of years saying it’s true, OK so now you get it or do I have to explain further?
Please explain further. As of today when someone has a bacterial infection you have a direct evidence of it, you use an antibiotic, you kill the bacteria, you cure the illness. No miasmia, humors or worms involved. It’s like you are saying we have a space photo for a round earth but what if a discovery undo it tomorrow.
The idea is that theories have considerable evidence and are consistent with all testing done up to that point. (Warning: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL ONLY) But what if we found out tomorrow that if you put bacteria in an environment with a specific magnetic field, they no longer caused disease and they end up finding out that bacteria poop has magnetize structures of the cell and cause diseases. That antibiotics have the magnetized structures with the opposite polarity that counteract the bacteria poop. Or some shit like that. This would contradict our current understanding of germ theory and it would be proven to be wrong or at least incomplete.
That is why theories are not “proven” because they are ALWAYS open to better explanation if one can be provided. That being said, it is highly unlikely that any well established, defined and tested theory will ever be “disproven” wholecloth, becuase it has always been consistent with observations. Germs are real, disease is clearly related to them in some way, specific germs cause specific reactions in our bodies, etc. But we could always be partially wrong about something, or have an incomplete explanation.
EDIT: for you people down voting, you know you are defending the conclusions of science while misunderstanding the very nature of the scientific method. Science is not dogma. It is a method of continuous improvement. If evidence contradicts current understanding, science learns from it and adapts accordingly. That is what makes Science trustworthy, it does not put conclusion before the evidence. Don’t make that same mistake.
The fact that you have to explain the scientific method is telling.
I responded to the wrong person. I meant to respond to the person above you.