Any recent failed scientific theories?
March 2, 2009 12:48 PM Subscribe
There are many examples of failed or replaced scientific theories throughout history, like heliocentrism or the four-element theory of matter. Can you think of any examples from the last 50-75 years of a theory once held in high regard that is now thoroughly discredited?
Intelligent Design/Creationism comes to mind, but I can't seem to think of any others at the moment. I'll even be happy if it's something somewhat esoteric, since most of the "big" theories have been established for some time.
Intelligent Design/Creationism comes to mind, but I can't seem to think of any others at the moment. I'll even be happy if it's something somewhat esoteric, since most of the "big" theories have been established for some time.
Lots of google hits for "discredited scientific theories," but you'll have to do your own 20th Century filtering.
posted by rhizome at 12:57 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by rhizome at 12:57 PM on March 2, 2009
Stomach ulcers are a great one.
AIDS being fundamentally linked to gay sex is probably a candidate for this, though its identification as "GRID" was relatively short lived, compared to things like the ulcer-stress theory.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:58 PM on March 2, 2009
AIDS being fundamentally linked to gay sex is probably a candidate for this, though its identification as "GRID" was relatively short lived, compared to things like the ulcer-stress theory.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:58 PM on March 2, 2009
Well I don't know if you want to call it "scientific" as such, but before WWII, institutionalism was the dominant economic theory in America, before it was ruthlessly and deliberately suppressed by the neoclassicals in the 1940s-50s. You can still find the odd institutionalist around, and the movement has attempted to adapt itself to neoclassical dominance, but compared to its prominence in the 1920s-30s it's all but disappeared.
Similarly, and more "scientifically," the concept of "vertebral subluxation" was the dominant theory behind chiropractic "medicine" for decades after the concept was introduced in 1895, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a practitioner who holds to that theory as a major explanation for disease. Many chiropractors have completely abandoned it as unscientific mumbo-jumbo while maintaining a more alternative, holistic approach they believe productive for their patients, working in tandem with more traditional, allopathic practitioners called "doctors".
That's what I can think of off the top of my head. If any physicists poke their heads in here I'm sure there are several 20th-century blind-alleys that the discipline explored before abandoning.
posted by valkyryn at 12:59 PM on March 2, 2009
Similarly, and more "scientifically," the concept of "vertebral subluxation" was the dominant theory behind chiropractic "medicine" for decades after the concept was introduced in 1895, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a practitioner who holds to that theory as a major explanation for disease. Many chiropractors have completely abandoned it as unscientific mumbo-jumbo while maintaining a more alternative, holistic approach they believe productive for their patients, working in tandem with more traditional, allopathic practitioners called "doctors".
That's what I can think of off the top of my head. If any physicists poke their heads in here I'm sure there are several 20th-century blind-alleys that the discipline explored before abandoning.
posted by valkyryn at 12:59 PM on March 2, 2009
In 1956, we learned that Nature fundamentally distinguishes from left- and right-handed systems; parity non-conservation.
Perhaps the Wikipedia page on obsolete scientific theories is comprehensive enough.
posted by fatllama at 1:01 PM on March 2, 2009
Perhaps the Wikipedia page on obsolete scientific theories is comprehensive enough.
posted by fatllama at 1:01 PM on March 2, 2009
There's the concept of "type A personalities", and the purported link to heart disease. (Wikipedia says Type A & B personality theory is "considered to be obsolete".)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 1:04 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 1:04 PM on March 2, 2009
It's a few decades out of your specifications, but the germ theory of disease wasn't really proven until the mid-to-late 1800s.
Plate tectonics wasn't accepted until the mid 20th century.
posted by jedicus at 1:10 PM on March 2, 2009
Plate tectonics wasn't accepted until the mid 20th century.
posted by jedicus at 1:10 PM on March 2, 2009
I recall being taught in drug ed. classes in the early 1980s that the only physically addictive drugs are alcohol and heroin/morphine, because they're the only ones that cause severe physical withdrawal symptoms. Of course, all other drugs are PLENTY BAD anyway, children, because they A) cause you to throw your baby brother out the window whilst "high," and B) are all gateways to heroin!
posted by scody at 1:11 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by scody at 1:11 PM on March 2, 2009
Luminiferous aether.
Was pretty much killed by by Michelson–Morley in 1887. Not 20th C.
posted by GuyZero at 1:13 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Was pretty much killed by by Michelson–Morley in 1887. Not 20th C.
posted by GuyZero at 1:13 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The other 'new' theory that often gets mentioned is plate tectonics. It's hard to quickly find information now about what exactly was believed before, probably because there were various ideas and definitely because modern articles focus more on what the new theories are and how they developed, but when Wegener first introduced the idea of continental drift in the first part of last century (1920s) it was widely discredited by geologists. Much older geological theories included castrophism and uniformitarianism, as examples. Wegener wasn't a geologist himself which didn't help, an outsider telling them what's what, but also the mechanisms weren't known and the ones he proposed weren't really plausible. As late as the 60s-70s textbooks were still either discounting the theory or not including it. Now of course there;'s lots of evidence confirming that it actually happens and allowing plausible mechanisms to be proposed
Abrupt changes in our understanding like the H. pylorii one are actually kind of rare and it's much more common for ideas and thinking to evolve over time as we find new evidence and put together new ideas. This is what happened with plate tectonics and there are lots of examples of this kind of evolution. Science is doing this kind of gradual incrementing all the time.
I can also think of many new pieces of scientific information that have been discovered and confirmed during my lifetime, but there's isn't always one specific theory you can point to that was superseded by them. For example, RNA interference is insanely cool (2006 Nobel prize) but I can't point to anything that it specifically replaced except I guess a gap in our knowledge before hand when no one knew about this mechanism.
posted by shelleycat at 1:15 PM on March 2, 2009
Abrupt changes in our understanding like the H. pylorii one are actually kind of rare and it's much more common for ideas and thinking to evolve over time as we find new evidence and put together new ideas. This is what happened with plate tectonics and there are lots of examples of this kind of evolution. Science is doing this kind of gradual incrementing all the time.
I can also think of many new pieces of scientific information that have been discovered and confirmed during my lifetime, but there's isn't always one specific theory you can point to that was superseded by them. For example, RNA interference is insanely cool (2006 Nobel prize) but I can't point to anything that it specifically replaced except I guess a gap in our knowledge before hand when no one knew about this mechanism.
posted by shelleycat at 1:15 PM on March 2, 2009
Mod note: few comments removed - this is not a nomination process for theories you hope will be discredited real soon now
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:21 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:21 PM on March 2, 2009
Intelligent Design/Creationism comes to mind
This was replaced nearly 200 years ago. Anything along these lines in the last 50-75 years has been religious, not scientific theory.
I can't find the names in a quick search, but prior to the 40's, there were theories of the source of the vast energies released by radioactive substances (such as radium) that were quite wrong.
eg at the turn of the century "One popular theory at the time was that space was full of waves of energy, and almost all materials were completely transparent to this sea of radiation, but radium, polonium and uranium absorbed some of this energy and re-emitted it."
This sort of thing gets touched on in Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a chemical boyhood (which is a good read in and of itself).
posted by -harlequin- at 1:52 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
This was replaced nearly 200 years ago. Anything along these lines in the last 50-75 years has been religious, not scientific theory.
I can't find the names in a quick search, but prior to the 40's, there were theories of the source of the vast energies released by radioactive substances (such as radium) that were quite wrong.
eg at the turn of the century "One popular theory at the time was that space was full of waves of energy, and almost all materials were completely transparent to this sea of radiation, but radium, polonium and uranium absorbed some of this energy and re-emitted it."
This sort of thing gets touched on in Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a chemical boyhood (which is a good read in and of itself).
posted by -harlequin- at 1:52 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
According to wikipedia, Darwinian evolution was only replaced in the 1930's by a theory combining natural selection and Mendelian inheritance to form modern evolutionary theory.
posted by oddman at 1:59 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by oddman at 1:59 PM on March 2, 2009
David Reimer's story was largely the result of the debunked theory that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning.
posted by kisch mokusch at 2:01 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by kisch mokusch at 2:01 PM on March 2, 2009
I'm pretty sure birth order theory has been failing to hold up.
posted by Miko at 2:01 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by Miko at 2:01 PM on March 2, 2009
Frontal lobotomy as treatment for a huge range of psychological issues is a good specific one. I think you will find a lot of examples in that area, actually -ECT is now gaining some interest in treatment of depression, but it had been labelled as barbaric for some time after once being well accepted.
posted by kellyblah at 2:43 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by kellyblah at 2:43 PM on March 2, 2009
The theory of plate tectonics only superseded the previous explanation for the movement of the Earth's crust, mountain ranges, etc, (geosyncline theory) in the early 20th century.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:48 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:48 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The idea, held by Hubble, Einstein, Hawking, and many others, that the expansion of the universe had to be slowing due to gravity. The only question seemed to be whether or not there was enough total gravity to cause the expansion to come to a complete stop and, thereafter, for the universe to begin to collapse in upon itself again. Under this idea, it was completely plausible that there had been, and would continue to be, a continuing cycle of big bangs and big crunches.
It has recently been discovered that, counter to everyones' intuition, the expansion is accelerating.
posted by dinger at 3:24 PM on March 2, 2009
It has recently been discovered that, counter to everyones' intuition, the expansion is accelerating.
posted by dinger at 3:24 PM on March 2, 2009
Temin's description of how tumor viruses act on the genetic material of the cell through reverse transcription was revolutionary for its day. This upset the widely held belief at the time of the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology posited by Nobel laureate Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA (along with James Watson and Rosalind Franklin). Crick, along with most other molecular biologists of the day, believed genetic information to flow exclusively from DNA to RNA to protein. wiki
posted by Jorus at 3:29 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Jorus at 3:29 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've noticed a lot of criticism of the Savannah Theory/Savannah hypothesis of human evolution and why we're so different to other great apes ("we came down from the trees and living on the plains changed us") - it has a lot of problems and is widely doubted now. Nothing has really replaced it.
The aquatic ape enthusiasts are pleased that the established conventional wisdom is failing, but of course that doesn't mean they're right.
posted by BinaryApe at 3:46 PM on March 2, 2009
The aquatic ape enthusiasts are pleased that the established conventional wisdom is failing, but of course that doesn't mean they're right.
posted by BinaryApe at 3:46 PM on March 2, 2009
Freudian psychoanalysis was the dominant paradigm in psychology for decades, but it failed to stand up to experimental scrutiny. It's essentially a historical curiosity nowadays. I got through an undergraduate and master's program in psychology without ever having to study it.
posted by Clambone at 3:48 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by Clambone at 3:48 PM on March 2, 2009
The theory that there was no adult neurogenesis was dogma in neuroscience until the 90's.
posted by afu at 4:17 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by afu at 4:17 PM on March 2, 2009
Best answer: Astronomy has had a lot of those. I remember no more than 20 years ago seeing a documentary where a major astronomer confidently asserted that above the level of galactic super-clusters there was no structure to the universe. It was all "quite uniform". A few years later they did find larger structures than that.
One of the reasons astronomical theory is in ferment is that the last 50 years has seen the development of newer and better instruments of lots of kinds, which have provided breathtaking data that has overthrown older theories right and left.
One of the best examples of that was when a new telescope was used to take red-shift data on a slit laid across a galaxy. They were trying to measure the rotational rate at different radii from the center of the galaxy, and what they expected was that the further out, the slower.
That wasn't what they measured; most of the galactic disk was rotating about the same speed. The outer parts were moving a lot faster than they had thought they would be. That led to all the theories about "dark matter", because it was the only way, gravitationally speaking, to explain that movement.
Computers have made a lot of new theories possible, too. In just the last twenty years an entirely new theory came out about how Earth's moon was formed, as a result of computer simulations.
It used to be thought that the Milky Way was a classic spiral, like Andromeda. Just recently it was determined that the Milky Way is a barred spiral.
There aren't any examples like that from classic physics in the last fifty years; it's settled down. But astronomy is still fermenting. It's an exciting time for astronomers.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:43 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
One of the reasons astronomical theory is in ferment is that the last 50 years has seen the development of newer and better instruments of lots of kinds, which have provided breathtaking data that has overthrown older theories right and left.
One of the best examples of that was when a new telescope was used to take red-shift data on a slit laid across a galaxy. They were trying to measure the rotational rate at different radii from the center of the galaxy, and what they expected was that the further out, the slower.
That wasn't what they measured; most of the galactic disk was rotating about the same speed. The outer parts were moving a lot faster than they had thought they would be. That led to all the theories about "dark matter", because it was the only way, gravitationally speaking, to explain that movement.
Computers have made a lot of new theories possible, too. In just the last twenty years an entirely new theory came out about how Earth's moon was formed, as a result of computer simulations.
It used to be thought that the Milky Way was a classic spiral, like Andromeda. Just recently it was determined that the Milky Way is a barred spiral.
There aren't any examples like that from classic physics in the last fifty years; it's settled down. But astronomy is still fermenting. It's an exciting time for astronomers.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:43 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Regarding the formation of the Moon: the Giant Impact Hypothesis
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 5:35 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 5:35 PM on March 2, 2009
Despite the known existence of craters on the Earth, and visible on the moon, the whole concept of meteorites and planetary bombardment didn't really get accepted until fairly late in the 20th century.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:39 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:39 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The idea that only living organisms (i.e., bacteria) and viruses could spread communicable diseases went by the wayside when prions (misfolded proteins) were found to be the vector of transmission in the similar diseases of scrapie in sheep, mad cow disease/bovine spongiform encephalitis in cows, and kuru/Creutzfeld-Jakob syndrome in humans.
That hypothesis was extremely controversial when it was proposed and was only unequivocally validated sometime in the mid-nineties.
posted by Sublimity at 6:07 PM on March 2, 2009
That hypothesis was extremely controversial when it was proposed and was only unequivocally validated sometime in the mid-nineties.
posted by Sublimity at 6:07 PM on March 2, 2009
It turns out that Velikovski was wrong. Also, I can remember when there was only one planet that had rings and Venus was wet and rainy all the time.
posted by faceonmars at 6:27 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by faceonmars at 6:27 PM on March 2, 2009
The theory of Martian Canals was definitively disproved in 1965 by Mariner 4 (though the theory was in disrepute long before that).
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:45 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:45 PM on March 2, 2009
I think your view of science is a bit "pop" or headline-oriented. If you watch any scientific field closely you can see examples of discredited hypotheses all the time. It's how science works, to be blunt.
What you seem to be getting at might be "hypotheses broadly accepted as theories to the point they were taught in school" or something like that. Those exist, but better textbooks make clear what is accepted and what is proposed. A lot of students miss that nuance, surely.
Astronomy does have many, many examples, such as the discovery of the Trans-Neptunian Objects and their expansion to the point of swallowing up -- if you will -- Pluto. Nine planets was something you could always remember, right? Dramatic ones include the discovery that Mercury rotates (infamously invalidating Larry Niven's first published short story between acceptance and printing), the rings of Neptune and Jupiter (it was once a staple of SF that the Solar system was uniquely recognizable because of Saturn), or the discovery the Mars had canals, after all.
There's been tremendous work on exoplanets now that the technology is there to observe and classify them. We're beginning to get a good idea that certain kinds of stars (but probably not all) are going to be loaded with planets. The question of Earth-like remains somewhat up in the air, though -- but then again. Did you check the news this week? In some fields that's a very reasonable question.
Black holes are something that were predicted by Einsteinian physics a century ago, but not everything is settled. That's not the same thing as an overturned theory, but it shows that almost any field you can name that's been around a while may not be as stable as you think.
In my lifetime one of the most important changes has been the gradual acceptance -- grudging at first -- that the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event was caused by a meteor impact. It went from crazy out-there to mainstream in about 20 years. And then the Deccan Traps hypothesis surfaced. It may yet dominate.
Moving to the inner world, I would say that I've also been stunned by the speed at which psychology itself has become discredited -- or at least the idea of analysis. Cognitive therapies and pills have really overtaken the field right now to the point where I'd hate to be entering it with the idea of becoming a therapist (research is another matter).
Language acquisition is something you'd think might be settled by now but remains hotly debated, with ideas dominant a generation ago now on the wane.
And if you want to take a social science like economics in your kitbag, you've got the last six months imploding Friedmanism (though its dead-enders will continue to wage guerrilla warfare for some years to come, by indications).
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
What you seem to be getting at might be "hypotheses broadly accepted as theories to the point they were taught in school" or something like that. Those exist, but better textbooks make clear what is accepted and what is proposed. A lot of students miss that nuance, surely.
Astronomy does have many, many examples, such as the discovery of the Trans-Neptunian Objects and their expansion to the point of swallowing up -- if you will -- Pluto. Nine planets was something you could always remember, right? Dramatic ones include the discovery that Mercury rotates (infamously invalidating Larry Niven's first published short story between acceptance and printing), the rings of Neptune and Jupiter (it was once a staple of SF that the Solar system was uniquely recognizable because of Saturn), or the discovery the Mars had canals, after all.
There's been tremendous work on exoplanets now that the technology is there to observe and classify them. We're beginning to get a good idea that certain kinds of stars (but probably not all) are going to be loaded with planets. The question of Earth-like remains somewhat up in the air, though -- but then again. Did you check the news this week? In some fields that's a very reasonable question.
Black holes are something that were predicted by Einsteinian physics a century ago, but not everything is settled. That's not the same thing as an overturned theory, but it shows that almost any field you can name that's been around a while may not be as stable as you think.
In my lifetime one of the most important changes has been the gradual acceptance -- grudging at first -- that the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event was caused by a meteor impact. It went from crazy out-there to mainstream in about 20 years. And then the Deccan Traps hypothesis surfaced. It may yet dominate.
Moving to the inner world, I would say that I've also been stunned by the speed at which psychology itself has become discredited -- or at least the idea of analysis. Cognitive therapies and pills have really overtaken the field right now to the point where I'd hate to be entering it with the idea of becoming a therapist (research is another matter).
Language acquisition is something you'd think might be settled by now but remains hotly debated, with ideas dominant a generation ago now on the wane.
And if you want to take a social science like economics in your kitbag, you've got the last six months imploding Friedmanism (though its dead-enders will continue to wage guerrilla warfare for some years to come, by indications).
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on March 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Another one from the early/mid-'80s: I recall explicitly being told that it was medically impossible for children to be clinically depressed. (Which kind of freaked me out, as I clearly realized I had had several major depressive episodes since about the age of 10, so I went to the school counselor to see what I could do about it.) It's only been in about the past 20 years or so that depression in children has been acknowledged as a serious medical and mental health issue.
posted by scody at 11:27 PM on March 2, 2009
posted by scody at 11:27 PM on March 2, 2009
Weird that nobody has mentioned the extinction of the dinosaurs? I remember growing up with the knowledge that "we will never know" what killed the dinosaurs.
posted by one_bean at 1:21 AM on March 3, 2009
posted by one_bean at 1:21 AM on March 3, 2009
Weird that nobody has mentioned the extinction of the dinosaurs?
dhartung did (it's the C-T extinction event).
posted by dinger at 3:37 AM on March 3, 2009
dhartung did (it's the C-T extinction event).
posted by dinger at 3:37 AM on March 3, 2009
What about Planet Pluto?
posted by Pollomacho at 4:10 AM on March 3, 2009
posted by Pollomacho at 4:10 AM on March 3, 2009
"That wasn't what they measured; most of the galactic disk was rotating about the same speed. The outer parts were moving a lot faster than they had thought they would be. That led to all the theories about "dark matter", because it was the only way, gravitationally speaking, to explain that movement."
Actually, galaxy velocity dispersions in clusters first led to theories of dark matter, although galactic rotation curves certainly represented key evidence later on.
posted by edd at 7:05 AM on March 3, 2009
Actually, galaxy velocity dispersions in clusters first led to theories of dark matter, although galactic rotation curves certainly represented key evidence later on.
posted by edd at 7:05 AM on March 3, 2009
Response by poster: A lot of interesting stuff here, thanks for all the suggestions. This was a bit of a fishing expedition, and I cast a pretty wide net so there's only a few that I'm marking as best. That's only because they most closely fit my needs, and not a reflection of their quality. dhartung's response, for example, is an awesome answer, but just not for my specific question.
I think it's one of the great and under-appreciated strengths of science to understand that our knowledge continues to progress even today.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:34 AM on March 4, 2009
I think it's one of the great and under-appreciated strengths of science to understand that our knowledge continues to progress even today.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:34 AM on March 4, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by shelleycat at 12:55 PM on March 2, 2009 [4 favorites]