Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

[JWeinCom]

numberwang said:

JWeinCom said:

Ehhhhh.... I don't think any of that is right.

By 1917 there were experiments already being conducted about the existence of protons and neutrons.  At that point, they knew atoms could be divided.

There was no concensus that the milky way was all of the universe.  The more common theory (proposed in the 1500) was that the universe was infinite.  So there were questions about it before then.  Einstein was the one who brought the idea of a finite universe into prominence.

I believe the theory of lumineferous aether was not that light is moving aether, but that aether was a medium through which light could travel.  There was still debate over lights as particles or waves, and I don't think the theory was ever touted as fact.  Either way, the Michaelson-Morley experiments tested for aether in the 1800s, and effectively disproved the theory, or at the very least cast extreme doubt.

Was there any proof of atoms not being a tomos (in-dividual) before Otto Hahn in 1938? Rutherford's experiments in 1917 paved the way, but that was also a hundred years ago.

Is there any scientific publication that postulates the existance of other galaxies before 1917?

Point is not to argue at what specific time scientific facts got overthrown - the history of science is perpetual change of consencus, no reason to believe our facts remain. Whatever dark energy & matter is will likely overthrow existing concepts of reality again.

The big money question if if our mode of acquiring knowledge will ever lead forward to a truth (if such a thing exists ontological) or perpetual sidestepping like the last thousands of years.

I'd consider Rutherford's experiments the point at which we knew the atom was non indivisible.  But, if they were doing those experiments in 1917, I'd imagine there was some dispute before then.  

As for scientific publications that postulate the existence of other galaxies, naturally I don't have them at my disposal.  Nor am I aware of any science books touting the opposite.  While other galaxies weren't postulated precisely, there was a belief in an infinite number of stars in the universe.  It was a common belief for a few hundred years.  It started being challenged in the 1700's in Olber's paradox which questioned how the sky could ever be dark with so infinite stars.

I'm not sure that any of this was proposed as fact though.  Obviously someone probably did, but I don't know if it was on a large scale.

 

I'd say the prepetual change in science is getting closer to the truth.  Newton's theory of gravity was not perfect, but it was certainly an advancement that provided useful practical benefits (and is still accurate in most cases).  Einstein's theory of relativity again was not perfect, but was a huge leap forward.  Darwin's theory of natural selection was also not perfect, but it set us on a path to the point where evolutionary models are used to fight disease.  Freud's theory (which are borderline science) were far off base, but they nevertheless yielded useful concepts that have helped our understanding of the brain tremendously.

I'd hardly call this sidestepping.  I'd call it progress.  What we know now is demonstrably more accurate than what we had in the past.