How much of older history do we get wrong?

[Michael]

It's a premise of the philosophy of science that only analytic statements, i.e. statements of formal systems such as logic or mathematics, are provable, e.g. by demonstrating tautology.

Statements about the world, i.e. what Kant called 'synthetic' statements, are not strictly provable because observations are subject to error, the world is in flux, the problems of induction, causality, etc. OTOH, hypotheses and theories can be disproved by falsification.

In practice, it's increasingly common for scientists to use the word, as the media-led spread of science into the larger community makes the use of jargon problematic - as has happened with the use of 'theory'.

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

Hype seems to be far more important these days than scientific conservatism or scientific accuracy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many observations are subject to error, yes, but this is often caused by researchers doing studies wrong - such as not using the "double blind" sceintific method. You can red flag some of them. But there also are, without a doubt, perfectly done studies that definitively prove hypotheses right or wrong.

We can never be 100% certain of states of affairs in the world. Even Popperian falsification ('disproof') is subject to uncertainty.

 

[Michael]

We can never be 100% certain of states of affairs in the world. Even Popperian falsification ('disproof') is subject to uncertainty.

I'd say that a need for a disproof is not only subject to uncertainty, it's been tossed overboard as it relates to theoretical physics.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'd say that a need for a disproof is not only subject to uncertainty, it's been tossed overboard as it relates to theoretical physics.

Not even just in physics. Scientists in all specialties search for both proof and disproof of hypotheses.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Many observations are subject to error, yes, but this is often caused by researchers doing studies wrong - such as not using the "double blind" sceintific method. You can red flag some of them. But there also are, without a doubt, perfectly done studies that definitively prove hypotheses right or wrong.

Well, no. Pretty much all measurements are subject to uncertainty, regardless of how competent the researchers are. Double blind studies have their place, but are hardly the end-all for a scientist. I recently retired from a career doing various types of chemistry - and I don't think I've ever done a truly double-blind study of the type seen in medicine. The closest would be considering the various instruments blind, and when I don't know the answer either until I see the data.

I'll also chime in that proof doesn't exist in science, the best you get is really really pretty sure.

 

[grasping the after wind]

well I was talking more things further back that we have evidence for but mistook their purpose or use. How in movies and such future people mistake what we have and their uses. Like thinking a toilet seat was a crown or such. thinking columbus was first was the truth untill we learnt more.

Archeology is a speculative science. There is no way for us to be absolutely sure the conclusions we come to from the evidence available are correct ones . They are the best educated guess and always open to revision if new evidence were to come to light. For instance , some future person having no other evidence to consult while reading your post might mistakenly think learnt was the past tense of learn in American English.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Isn't learnt Old English for lthe past tense learned? That is beside the point, but does fall into archaeology.

I did not imply all and only double blind studies are accurate. The so-called "scientific method" is DB for a study on the safety, effectiveness, and benefits/drawbacks of a specific oral or injected medical treatment for psychological reasons. The problem with this is a rumored belief in a "placebo effect" that may never be proven or disproven.

 

[loveofourlord]

Isn't learnt Old English for lthe past tense learned? That is beside the point, but does fall into archaeology.

I did not imply all and only double blind studies are accurate. The so-called "scientific method" is DB for a study on the safety, effectiveness, and benefits/drawbacks of a specific oral or injected medical treatment for psychological reasons. The problem with this is a rumored belief in a "placebo effect" that may never be proven or disproven.

actually it's pretty much been as disproven as much as science can, what doctors and scientists call placebo effect is just the background noise, AKA if you do nothing how many people will get better on their own, and how many won't, the trappings of medicine are just there to avoid as much bias as possible. The only thing the so called Placebo effect does, it effect the percieved symptoms that have no objectiveness, like how much pain you feel, how sleepy you are. But don't change the actual amount of pain or anything else.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

actually it's pretty much been as disproven as much as science can, what doctors and scientists call placebo effect is just the background noise, AKA if you do nothing how many people will get better on their own, and how many won't, the trappings of medicine are just there to avoid as much bias as possible. The only thing the so called Placebo effect does, it effect the percieved symptoms that have no objectiveness, like how much pain you feel, how sleepy you are. But don't change the actual amount of pain or anything else.

The placebo effect can be unexpectedly powerful in influencing systems via the autonomic nervous system (sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation), through CNS mediated hormones, and, indirectly, the immune system. So it certainly hasn't been 'disproven' - a great deal of scientific research is going into it.

Here's recent overview: The Neuroscience of Placebo Effects.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The placebo effect can be unexpectedly powerful in influencing systems via the autonomic nervous system (sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation), through CNS mediated hormones, and, indirectly, the immune system. So it certainly hasn't been 'disproven' - a great deal of scientific research is going into it.

Here's recent overview: The Neuroscience of Placebo Effects.

Do you believe the placebo effect is real?

 

[Chesterton]

And if you want real comic history just talk to an American about who won World War I.

I'm intrigued. Who won World War I?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you believe the placebo effect is real?

I accept the science demonstrating its effectiveness. It can't cure somatic disease, but can have CNS-mediated physiological effects. IOW it can do a bit more than just make you feel better.

 

[GodLovesCats]

well I was talking more things further back that we have evidence for but mistook their purpose or use. How in movies and such future people mistake what we have and their uses. Like thinking a toilet seat was a crown or such. thinking columbus was first was the truth untill we learnt more.

Back to the original topic: What are some known examples of this?

 

[loveofourlord]

Back to the original topic: What are some known examples of this?

well I don't know if we have them, just curious if we do :> Have wondered if the way we interpet what animals are doing are contrary to what they are doing, or because were having to infer alot from history that some times we infer wrong. It's one thing if we have written history and such, but for alot of distant and remote stuff we just have the artifacts.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Misinterpreting animals is easy. Except for trained parrots and macaws, they don't speak English.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm intrigued. Who won World War I?

He is alluding to Canada's disproportionate heavy involvement therein, as a dominion of the British Empire.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Back to the original topic: What are some known examples of this?

A good example here is a set of instruments recovered from Roman Egypt and Britain that were thought to be make-up kits for many years. Then one day, they found out an almost exact kit was in use in modern Egypt amongst villagers to treat gonococcal eye infections.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Isn't learnt Old English for lthe past tense learned? That is beside the point, but does fall into archaeology.

I did not imply all and only double blind studies are accurate. The so-called "scientific method" is DB for a study on the safety, effectiveness, and benefits/drawbacks of a specific oral or injected medical treatment for psychological reasons. The problem with this is a rumored belief in a "placebo effect" that may never be proven or disproven.

There are actually a number of problems with Randomised control trials, and their external validity.

Just search for this article, it does a good rundown. Apologies, couldn't manage to upload the actual thing here:

Solomon, Miriam (2011). Just a paradigm: evidence-based medicine in epistemological context. _European Journal for Philosophy of Science_ 1 (3):451-466

 

[Chesterton]

He is alluding to Canada's disproportionate heavy involvement therein, as a dominion of the British Empire.

I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the contributions of Canada's fighting forces...for the almost three years...before we showed up.

 

[bhsmte]

Not asking from the conspiracy side, but more just watching movies like immortal engines, mating habbits of the earthbound human and such I wonder some times when were looking back at the histories that have less written stuff for us to check against, how much of what we think of the past is wrong and such. Where we infer the best we can, but the actual stuff is completly wrong or mistaken.

Movies, are generally not a good place to get a credible and somewhat accurate depiction of a historical event.