Options
Are there any areas of science where experts fundamentally disagree?
[Deleted User]
Posts: 26
Forum Member
✭
I was just wondering if anyone can think of areas of current scientific research where experts (not nutters) fundamentally disagree?
0
Comments
Personally I think it was an event.
Scientific discovery is an ongoing activity and there is a lot still unknown or unconfirmed.
I don't think there are any scientists that disagree it is happening.
That is on a sample of papers though, not a poll of climatologists and other qualified scientists.
Besides, consensus is not good for science. Science should never be about consensus, it should be about constant challenge of hypothesis to get to the truth, otherwise it is just a battle of opinions of (fallible) human beings.
Anyway, better not get in to all that...
Are there specific areas of biology? I thought of epigenetics where scientists seem to disagree on the significance of epigenetic change.
The ratio of believers to non-believers is pretty huge though. 97 out of every 100 scientists agree with Climate Change, the other 3 are evidently on the payroll of someone who wants it denied.
Yes, that field has disagreements, but then so do lots more. Evolution mechanisms are probably the big one - and theories on things like growth control, cell ageing and development etc. Whenever there are problems to be solved in science there will likely to be conflicting theories and sometimes these can lead to quite spectacular spats between academics... nature isn't the only thing that is red in tooth and claw.
And all the Government funded IPCC contributors are entirely neutral and objective - who need grants anyway...
Yes Darwin's theory doesn't seem to fit what science is finding out about the human genome and adaptive evolution. We seem to be selective and opportunistic in the way we evolve and at a much greater speed than classical natural selection predicts. Fascinating stuff.
The end of the universe is another point of conjecture. Experts now agree that the universe is expanding and that the expansion is accelerating. Quite what will actually happen is another story.
You can't have a universe AND something for it to expand into.
Why does there need to be something to expand into?
Ah, that's the thing! It doesn't need to be expanding into anything! The universe has a characteristic "size" and that "size" is progressively becoming larger.
I think this is still ongoing........
There isn't that much consensus on these theories (of which there are many) from what I have read - the argument about multiverses is still raging on and the argument about the nature of multiverses ( there are at least nine distinct propositions) amongst the supporters of that theory are also many and varied.
Then there is the debate about how to resolve the issues... throw the words 'anthropic principle' into a group of physicists and the result could involve fisticuffs.
It is... there was quite a spat between Dawkins and E O Wilson in 2012 which is still rambling on, with other biologists either saying both are wrong or that the debate isn't even relevant anymore. It's quite amusing to watch.
1. The answer to 6 + 4 * 3, or whatever it was
2. Whether 0.999999 recurring was the same as 1, or whatever it was.
We had fun with those