Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

Are there any areas of science where experts fundamentally disagree?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26
Forum Member
✭
in General Discussion #1
I was just wondering if anyone can think of areas of current scientific research where experts (not nutters) fundamentally disagree?
«134

Comments

  • Options
    gasheadgashead Posts: 13,819
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    jo058 wrote: »
    I was just wondering if anyone can think of areas of current scientific research where experts (not nutters) fundamentally disagree?
    Surely the issue of climate change/ global warming is an obvious, and arguably the biggest, one? Depends how you define an 'expert' or who you consider to be one, I suppose, but plenty of scientists disagree it's happening, or that it's man made or whatever the nub of the issue is.
  • Options
    Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    Big bang theories?
  • Options
    seacamseacam Posts: 21,364
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    Yes the big bang theory, was it an event in a line of things or was it the beginning?

    Personally I think it was an event.
  • Options
    jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    Particle Physics; astronomy; cosmology; many areas in biology . I dare say that the other sciences have conflicts too.

    Scientific discovery is an ongoing activity and there is a lot still unknown or unconfirmed.
  • Options
    SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    gashead wrote: »
    Surely the issue of climate change/ global warming is an obvious, and arguably the biggest, one? Depends how you define an 'expert' or who you consider to be one, I suppose, but plenty of scientists disagree it's happening, or that it's man made or whatever the nub of the issue is.

    I don't think there are any scientists that disagree it is happening.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    I thought anthropogenic climate change but this wikipedia article states that 97.1% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity. That's pretty much consensus I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes
  • Options
    SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    jo058 wrote: »
    I thought anthropogenic climate change but this wikipedia article states that 97.1% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity. That's pretty much consensus I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

    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...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #9
    jesaya wrote: »
    Particle Physics; astronomy; cosmology; many areas in biology . I dare say that the other sciences have conflicts too.

    Scientific discovery is an ongoing activity and there is a lot still unknown or unconfirmed.

    Are there specific areas of biology? I thought of epigenetics where scientists seem to disagree on the significance of epigenetic change.
  • Options
    SchmiznurfSchmiznurf Posts: 4,434
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    gashead wrote: »
    Surely the issue of climate change/ global warming is an obvious, and arguably the biggest, one? Depends how you define an 'expert' or who you consider to be one, I suppose, but plenty of scientists disagree it's happening, or that it's man made or whatever the nub of the issue is.

    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.
  • Options
    jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    jo058 wrote: »
    Are there specific areas of biology? I thought of epigenetics where scientists seem to disagree on the significance of epigenetic change.

    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.
  • Options
    SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    Certain industrialists would like people to believe that scientists are at war with one another over climate change, but that isn't the case.
  • Options
    SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    Schmiznurf wrote: »
    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.

    And all the Government funded IPCC contributors are entirely neutral and objective - who need grants anyway...
  • Options
    NX-74205NX-74205 Posts: 4,691
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    String Theory.
  • Options
    EnglishspinnerEnglishspinner Posts: 6,132
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    jesaya wrote: »
    ... 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.

    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.
  • Options
    The 12th DoctorThe 12th Doctor Posts: 4,338
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    The Big Bang. Most experts seem to agree that our universe is part of a multiverse where big bangs happen all the time...contrary to the former belief that we inhabited the only universe and time itself began with the big bang. Now it is believed that there is a higher-dimensional "bulk" where big bangs create universes constantly and with random initial conditions (of which there are around 10 to the 500th power variations so I read). This has been going on literally forever and will never stop.

    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.
  • Options
    seacamseacam Posts: 21,364
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    The 12th Doctor wrote: »
    The Big Bang. Most experts seem to agree that our universe is part of a multiverse where big bangs happen all the time...contrary to the former belief that we inhabited the only universe and time itself began with the big bang. Now it is believed that there is a higher-dimensional "bulk" where big bangs create universes constantly and with random initial conditions (of which there are around 10 to the 500th power variations so I read). This has been going on literally forever and will never stop.

    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.
    But what is it expanding into?
  • Options
    SaturnVSaturnV Posts: 11,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #18
    seacam wrote: »
    But what is it expanding into?

    You can't have a universe AND something for it to expand into.
    Why does there need to be something to expand into?
  • Options
    TerraCanisTerraCanis Posts: 14,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    seacam wrote: »
    But what is it expanding 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.
  • Options
    swingalegswingaleg Posts: 103,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #20
    There used to be a big schism in evolutionary biology between those who believed evolution happened by gradual genetic mutation and those who thought evolution consisted of rapid periods of change and long periods of stasis (theory of punctuated equilibrium)

    I think this is still ongoing........
  • Options
    jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #21
    The 12th Doctor wrote: »
    The Big Bang. Most experts seem to agree that our universe is part of a multiverse where big bangs happen all the time...contrary to the former belief that we inhabited the only universe and time itself began with the big bang. Now it is believed that there is a higher-dimensional "bulk" where big bangs create universes constantly and with random initial conditions (of which there are around 10 to the 500th power variations so I read). This has been going on literally forever and will never stop.

    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.

    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.
  • Options
    jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #22
    swingaleg wrote: »
    There used to be a big schism in evolutionary biology between those who believed evolution happened by gradual genetic mutation and those who thought evolution consisted of rapid periods of change and long periods of stasis (theory of punctuated equilibrium)

    I think this is still ongoing........

    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.
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    Some scientists disagree with all the findings of Velikovsky.
  • Options
    MaxatoriaMaxatoria Posts: 17,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    The number zero can still draw out some serious mathematical pitchforks
  • Options
    gemma-the-huskygemma-the-husky Posts: 18,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Couple more. The threads we had on here about

    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
  • Options
    albertdalbertd Posts: 14,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #26
    One area where they don't seem to agree is the reality/origins/treatment of ME/CFS. The sufferers know it is real enough but there are still "experts" who do not regard it as such.
Sign In or Register to comment.