/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15200896]

What commonly held scientific theories will be proven to be complete bogus in the next 50 years?

[Anonymous No.15200903]

>>15200896
The Standard Model.

[Anonymous No.15200906]

Hawking Radiation is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.15200923]

none, dogma isn't disprovable. commonly held scientific theories are commonly held because they're dogma, not because of any reasoning process that went into developing them. contemporary scientists don't understand this, so they are determined to take their holy dogma with them to their graves and theres nothing anyone can do about it

[Anonymous No.15200930]

string bigotry

[Anonymous No.15200942]

>>15200923
this is the hard truth.

[Anonymous No.15201006]

>>15200896
>proven to be complete bogus
"Excessive vaccinations are good for you."

[Anonymous No.15201017]

>>15200896
General relativy. They won't be able to get away with it adding more dark matter forever.

[Anonymous No.15201021]

>>15200896
Reality itself.

[Anonymous No.15201050]

>>15200923
I don't understand what you mean and what that picture is for

[Anonymous No.15201058]

>>15200896
Supersymmetry. Ed Witten is shitten (his britches)

[Anonymous No.15201220]

>>15200896
All after 18th century

[Anonymous No.15201267]

>>15200896
"race has no genetic basis"
At worst it's obviously false and at best it's just sophistry. You can believe that race is real without being a racist

[Anonymous No.15202492]

>>15200896
Theology

[Anonymous No.15202504]

>>15200896
Probably all of them.

[Anonymous No.15202634]

>>15202504
Even probability theories?

[Anonymous No.15202680]

Racial equality, materialism, big bang, science itself.

[Anonymous No.15203585]

>>15200923
>>15201050
dogma = faith based beliefs that are unshakable
pic shows the birth of the dogma, a result of peer review, which reinforces the dogma by its nature

[Anonymous No.15203616]

>>15200896
If you mean contemporary scientific paradigms that will likely come to be found to be incorrect, there's many.

Our understanding of "climate" (let alone climate change) is still a very new field with very poor quality modeling which rely on statistical assumptions that most climate scientists have no clue even are baked in.

Similarly, our understanding of power generation efficiency and the "science" (it's really more of an art form) of multi-objective optimization for energy problems will also likely be significantly overturned over the coming decades.

In general, anything that relies on statistical modeling but generally does not require significant probability/estimation/statistical learning prerequisites is likely to be bullshit.

Also, causal physical determinism is pretty unlikely to be the case unless we find some "minimum resolution" for material reality. It's a very good approximation of the central tendencies within the stochastic model of material state evolution, but it's a model not actual material reality.

[Anonymous No.15203675]

>>15203616
>Our understanding of "climate" (let alone climate change) is still a very new field with very poor quality modeling which rely on statistical assumptions that most climate scientists have no clue even are baked in.
you'll never meet a climate scientist who has more than a passing familiarity with theormodynamics or the propagation of light through an atmosphere. "atmospheric science" used to be a subset of physics until the global warming craze hit in the 90s, after that it was spun off into a separate discipline and lost connection with the basics. climate scientists use various memorized formulas gifted to them by their ancestry in physics, and they have no idea how or why the formulas supposedly work and no rational basis for whatever minimal mathematics they're capable of.

[Anonymous No.15203705]

>>15203675
I am certainly no climate expert myself, but my experience with climate science papers has given me the impression that very few of them have a strong physics and math background.

It kind of bothers me that as an electrical engineering person focused on information theory/learning based modeling I can see clear errors in just their modeling assumptions.

If these errors are present in their data analysis, I have no doubt that there are also significant problems on the physics/chemistry/wave propagation side of things.

I'm just less willing to make claims about climate scientists being ignorant in these topics because I myself only have an undergraduate level understanding of physics and thermo relative to my stronger background in the estimation/statistical modeling side of things.

[Anonymous No.15203709]

>>15203705
>I am certainly no climate expert myself, but my experience with climate science papers has given me the impression that very few of them have a strong physics and math background.
Most of them come from enviro policy/humanities backgrounds or chemistry. It's a shockingly soft science with very little grounding. The enviro science program where I went was basically a joke degree that women got to say they went to college.

[Anonymous No.15203720]

>>15201267
Well, thankfully it's really only in the west that we have these delusions.

Chinese and Indian biology researchers are well aware that there are racially and ethnically distributed differences in all sorts of things.

I remember seeing a presentation about a protein folding disorder given by a visiting Chinese professor at my university. The disease she was studying was particularly common in one ethnic group in the northwest of China, and she was very confused when she got questions after her presentation about whether it was an issue that her research was "racially targeting" this particular minority by limiting the subjects tested for genetic association to that specific ethnic minority.

[Anonymous No.15203728]

>>15203709
Well, that doesn't surprise me but is kind of sad to hear.

I had a friend that did environmental engineering at the same time as I did EE in undergrad. I remember thinking how weird it was how easy his courses seemed to be relative to mine but was never really sure if that was just a case of the particular department not being as strong. Maybe it's just the case that environmental engineering/climate science undergrad departments suck as a whole.

[Anonymous No.15203776]

>>15201267
That's not what that means. When people say that, they're talking about how, for example, an American and an Irish person are both just called "white" even though they're genetically different. Theyre not saying some white guy and some black guy are genetically identical. Nobody believes that.

[Anonymous No.15203778]

>>15203776
old stock americans are brits and scots, irish aren't that different
it's more different when you throw in germans, italians, poles, jews, etc.

[Anonymous No.15203782]

>>15203728
Yeah my experience has been that it's just a sham discipline altogether, which is why I don't trust much of the science that they produce. I take people in those areas more seriously if their background is in geology or atmospheric physics since those teach more of the relevant processes.

[Anonymous No.15203904]

>>15200906
cried out the experimental physicist as the freshly created micro black hole started its descend from the accelerator towards earth's core.

[Anonymous No.15203953]

>>15200896
The Jewish interpretations of quantum theory, especially the QED nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15204289]

>>15200896
All of biology once we unschakle ourselves from ethics and "suffering"

[Anonymous No.15204321]

virology

[[e-mail] No.15204329]

>proven to be complete bogus
Jesus meant it in a good way when he said Peter would found a church

[Anonymous No.15204345]

>>15200896

[Anonymous No.15204371]

>>15203616
>Understanding of "climate"
Do you have any idea what goes into a real climate model? I currently work in a physics/atmospheric science department, on the physics side, but still attend plenty of the talks given by the atmosphere side. The models are consistently high quality, with well reasoned statistical assumptions just like all models for any physical process. I am aware of "climate models" developed by individuals far removed from the academic side, but why would I believe that anyway?

>power generation efficiency
What are you talking about? Are you saying the second law of thermodynamics is wrong? Really have no idea what you mean.

>multi-objective optimization
I don't know about significantly overturned, but new innovations are made on this front all the time. However I don't think our current theories will be bogus (how can searching a phase space even BE bogus?), it's just that we'll better understand the space of very specific multi-objective optimization problems that frequently occur.

>statistical modeling but generally does not require significant probability/estimation/statistical learning prerequisites
Such as? Please let me know of a scientific theory that requires statistical modeling but no probabilities.

>causal physical determinism
It is interesting to discuss the implications of some of our physical models, but that does not mean they are scientific theories. This is more of a philosophic question than anything else.

[Anonymous No.15204393]

>>15204371
I read somewhere about solar and lunar cycle effects. any credibility?

[Anonymous No.15204701]

>>15204393
You read somewher that the solar and lunar cycle effects what? The climate? Yeah baka it's called seasons.

[bodhi No.15204742]

>>15204371
>second law of thermodynamics is wrong?
I am, well not so much wrong as in it shouldn't be a law because there are exceptions
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2572-second-law-of-thermodynamics-broken/

but these stem from materialists misconceptions of what this reality actually is and how it really works. This is not a closed system, energy is pumped into it from outside of it at the vortex of the torus

[Anonymous No.15204913]

>>15204371
>The models are consistently high quality
kek!

[Anonymous No.15205015]

>>15204742
>Pop-science site
>Literally has broken in quotes
>((((microscopic system))))

Holy shit, at least read the Wikipedia article before acting like you know something about a scientific topic.

Aspects like this are actually fairly common actually, on a sufficiently small time scale you will see spontaneous "energy generation"...just think that every so often the random motion of atoms will be coherent and cause a spontaneous "temperature increase" without any energy input. That's why these laws have very specific definitions, which obviously don't hold if you try to apply them in contexts they weren't designed for. It would be very exciting for the 2nd law to be broken...energy crisis is resolved! But all perpetual motion machines so far conceived are non-physical.

[Anonymous No.15205107]

>>15204913
They think we forgot about Climategate.

[Anonymous No.15205549]

>>15204321
they're not going to give up on their most profitable scam

[Anonymous No.15205681]

>>15200896
Special and general relativity
Wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics
Electron orbital clouds
Heaviside's formulation of Maxwell's equations
Theory of radiation
Theory of fusion and stellar nucleosynthesis
The Big Bang
Tectonic plates
Biogenic petroleum
Virtually every major archeological claim
Ice ages

[bodhi No.15205761]

>>15205015
>reeeeeeeee
not reading the spastic rants of a retard, thanks anyway

[Anonymous No.15205868]

Vaccination will be shown to be partially bogus. It doesn't work as well as is commonly believed.

[Anonymous No.15205938]

>>15205761
Just realized I replied to a tripfag. Don't know what else I was expecting.

[Anonymous No.15206102]

>>15201050
not him but many models are already shaky or baseless or are equally as good as other ones, from a scientific perspective, yet they dominate as the supreme truth. in other words, what op says is not the matter at hand so it can't happen. what can happen, to a limited extent, is fashions changing.

[Anonymous No.15206110]

>>15203778
>>15203776
>>15201267
yeah exactly. your racial categories in america don't even hold anywhere else much less explain differences and divisions in each case. they rather obscure them with something baseless. instead of saying that, say that populations have genetic differences, which anyone should be able to concede, but what exactly you mean by a population merely depends what slice of people you take and look at in comparison to other slices. there are things you can use to group people but american racial categories are useless and based on specific history and prejudices. mostly though, they're just too broad and ill-defined. an identity more than anything.

[Anonymous No.15206118]

>>15206110
btw the 'racial categories' in other countries are typically just 'foreigners' + ethnic groups within the country. that is, the whole world is generally taken as nothing but one group but the people within the country are specified and relevant.

though ethnic groups, particularly when it's only very tiny ones and one big one (such as china), may be taken as the same race in their outlook. that and the belief in unifying to one people for political and cultural and language reasons is why chinese consider themselves one race. but then this is not so for those ethnic groups that are still rather distint and live alongside han chinese. these are people distant from the major population centres. in those cases there is very much a contrast and intermarriage will vary. mostly though they intermarry and get along and assimilate to han (with the state's encouragement).

[Anonymous No.15206144]

>>15205681
>Tectonic plates
>Ice ages
i understand the others but why these two?

[Anonymous No.15206168]

>>15200903
IIRC it requires neutrinos to be massless which is already inconsistent with experimental observations?

[Anonymous No.15206174]

>>15200896
Evolution
Carbon dating
global warming (already demoted to climate change lol)
Ozone hole
Black hole
Quantum
Gender theory
Vaccine studies

[Anonymous No.15206181]

>>15206174
Life on earth didn't evolve?

[Anonymous No.15206184]

>>15206174
Black holes are real, anon.
They're coming for you.

[Anonymous No.15206188]

>>15200896
pretty much everything, but especially the covid vaccine

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYTb9DwKjQ

[Anonymous No.15206191]

>>15206184
It's ok, anon. I'm not worried. I'm a racemixer.

[Anonymous No.15206556]

>>15201267
>"race has no genetic basis"
>At worst it's obviously false and at best it's just sophistry. You can believe that race is real without being a racist
This is just a strawman of the liberal science position. Maybe you'll find a few nuts who say that, but nutpicking is boring.

[Anonymous No.15206563]

>>15206174
>Evolution
>Carbon dating
>global warming (already demoted to climate change lol)
>Ozone hole
>Black hole
>Quantum
>Gender theory
>Vaccine studies

>motivated_reasoning.jpg

[Anonymous No.15206574]

>>15200896
kek @ the people ITT who think woke science will be proven bogus in the future.
It was already proven bogus in the past. The future is bleak and will only get worse.

[Anonymous No.15206584]

>>15206563
All reasoning is motivated reasoning, animal.

[Anonymous No.15206637]

>>15200896
None. That's the beauty about actual science. All theories are correct. Just incomplete.

[Anonymous No.15207028]

>>15203776
>>15206110

You guys' posts are what I mean by sophistry. "Irish people have a different gene pool from say Russian people. African Americans also have a different gene pool from Irish people. Therefore all differences are equivalent and there's no race."

This is complete bullshit. There are many different ways to 'define' race based on genetic information, and they all pretty much agree with each other and with common sense in clustering the "white" people together, and the "black" people together. This fact has nothing to do with saying one race is better than another, so it's absurd to keep denying it.

[Anonymous No.15207039]

>>15206556
Try searching "race has no genetic basis" on Google. It sounds like you'll be surprised

[Anonymous No.15207370]

>>15207028
Read my posts you mouthbreathing fucking Amerimongrel. Studying the genetics of populations, however you wanna slice them up (even if there's little basis to it), is fine. Insisting your vague and routinely absurd racial categories are a fact of reality is not fine, not because of 'discrimination', but because it is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15207426]

>>15207370
You're just ignorant about population genetics just like most of the public who parrots the same thing. If you take the genomes of 100 people on earth at random and do a principal component analysis (something purely mathematical), the most important axis will be basically measure how "black" you are (Africans score on one extreme and non-Africans on the other). The second most important axis will help to distinguish the non-Africans into white and east-Asian and so on.

If you don't like principal component analysis you can run an "ADMIXTURE" algorithm which tries to account for human genetic diversity by creating K different ideal ancestry groups, and if you choose K small the ancestry groups will basically agree everyone's common sense classification of races based on appearance.

[Anonymous No.15208760]

>>15204371
Sorry, finally getting around to responding to this.

My understanding is that physicists have a reasonably well done approach to modeling of the atmosphere. I have my problems with physicists (in particular the confusion of the map with the territory in the insistence that physical determinism is actually representative of reality rather than a very good model of central tendencies with which we can only asymptotically approach determinism with infinite sampling), but my experience is that physicists have far better models for these climate systems than "climate scientists."

I am not particularly concerned about models far removed from the academic side, I am concerned about the models that are produced by academics within "climate science" that know neither the physical modeling conventions for heat propagation through a homogeneous medium, nor the fundamental statistical assumptions implicit within their regression schemes.

As an example, almost everything based on Bayesian linear regression is assuming a white noise gaussian additive noise model for their variation around their central parameterized regression equation and have no ability to account for non-stationary noise or the presence of multiple coupled sources of variation.

[Anonymous No.15208763]

>>15204371
In terms of what I was talking about for power generation, generally the engineers involved in the production of "next gen energy systems" split down the middle between the semi-conductors/chemistry oriented folks (that have good micro models and terrible integrated system performance estimates) and the "power systems" folks which have much better integrated systems analysis but a much poorer understanding of the factors effecting source by source performance.

Let us take for example this idea that is coming about now that we can adaptively use electric vehicles to "feed back" power into the grid on off hours to account for a lack of stable supply from environmentally dependent renewables. This idea may sound fine from the perspective of someone who assumes a very simple power exchange model (usually linear and ignoring the contribution of temperature/material degradation to the dynamics of the exchange). However, when you actually account for how many varying factors there are into prediction of power contributions from a set of fixed battery sources, you basically see that this scheduling problem is a fucking pipe dream if you try to use meaningful models for your scheduling of when a node would take power from the grid vs. contribute to it.

[Anonymous No.15209012]

>>15205681
>Heaviside's formulation of Maxwell's equations
My boy Oliver might not have any fancy book-learning, but I trust his intuition over any /sci/fag analysis.

[Anonymous No.15209258]

>>15206144
Tectonic plates aren't real.

[Anonymous No.15209262]

>>15200942
thats why it was jannie'd

[Anonymous No.15209273]

>15206144
>Ice ages
Because geologists believe that the best evidence for ice ages is various remnants of ancient walls.

[bodhi No.15209281]

>>15205938
>he doesn't know what a trip is
thks for confirming you are indeed retarded>>15206102

[Anonymous No.15209351]

>>15208760
Yeah, unfortunately the humanities/logical thinking aspect is often completely ignored when it comes to a hard science education...especially for anyone studying physics. It's easy to get engrossed in the equations and forget what everything is in the wider scheme. I mean, it's even called the standard "model"! Ultimately we have methods for describing and predicting what nature does, but yields very little for answers to the "philosophical" questions. Ask physicists what "charge" is, and you'll likely get a variety of answers.

>I am concerned about the models that are produced by academics within "climate science"
I'm not sure what group of "climate scientists" you're referring to. I suppose you might be referring to people trying to push a particular agenda by using "science" (i.e. ill conceived models) which certainly does happen. But usually it's as obvious bait as the "scientific" racial studies.

>everything based on Bayesian linear regression
Yeah, I once attended a talk on quantitative finance where the presenter showed his model with this same approach of very boilerplate assumptions. Pointed out that perhaps economic recessions can't be modeled as a Poisson process, he said it was the standard assumption and left it at that :/

>>15208763
Ah I see...I thought you were going off on something completely different. I'm doing my PhD in organic semiconductors, so very much on the one side of the split, and in a lot of ways it's very much a pipe dream. Unfortunately, to get funding you have to make these crazy claims that COULD be true ONE DAY...I doubt it's any different on the industrial side where instead of ending up in a grant idea it instead ends up in news headlines.

[Anonymous No.15209363]

>>15206168
While true, it can easily be "added onto" the Standard model. The mixing matrix doesn't break anything else.