Famous Scientists who believed in Poppycock

[Maxwell511]

Creationists seem to like arguments from authority and falsely attribute the same kind of reasoning to people that accept evolution. So I thought it would be a fun thread to show that we do not follow this reasoning.

The basic premise of this thread is to name one famous scientist that believed in something that is now clearly false and give the evidence against it.

I'll start:

Lord Kelvin: "heavier than air flying machines are impossible"

Evidence against: aeroplanes.

 

[Hespera]

How about a list of famous / infamous / ordinary / creationists who believe in poppycock?

 

[Split Rock]

Creationists seem to like arguments from authority and falsely attribute the same kind of reasoning to people that accept evolution. So I thought it would be a fun thread to show that we do not follow this reasoning.

The basic premise of this thread is to name one famous scientist that believed in something that is now clearly false and give the evidence against it.

I'll start:

Lord Kelvin: "heavier than air flying machines are impossible"

Evidence against: aeroplanes.

Aren't you supporting AVET's "Thalidomide, Go for throttle up, Pluto, Scientists is dum so we should use my error-ridden interpretation of God's Word Instead" argument with this thread?

 

[Hespera]

Aristotle thought that the crocodile's top jaw rather than bottom one was hinged, unlike any other animal.

 

[Split Rock]

How about a list of famous / infamous / ordinary / creationists who believe in poppycock?

That would certainly be a long list.

 

[Maxwell511]

Aren't you supporting AVET's "Thalidomide, Go for throttle up, Pluto, Scientists is dum so we should use my error-ridden interpretation of God's Word Instead" argument with this thread?

I thought I was refuting the premise of Agonaces of Susa's thread.

I don't know what you are talking about and sort of have the feeling that I don't wanna know. I am guessing my position is not in support of that since I am asking for evidence against the ideas.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How about a list of famous / infamous / ordinary / creationists who believe in poppycock?

Um... that would be all of them, dear one.

 

[plindboe]

Newton (Arguably the greatest scientist evah) believed in alchemy and lots of other nonsense.

Peter

PS. I predict that sooner or later some creationist will enter this thread to write: "Darwin - Evolution". Probably sooner.

 

[Maxwell511]

PS. I predict that sooner or later some creationist will enter this thread to write: "Darwin - Evolution". Probably sooner.

And if they produce the evidence against it that I asked for I will notify the Nobel committee.

Although I am sure there must have been some things that Darwin was wrong about. Are there any biologists here that can fill us in?

 

[Maxwell511]

James Clerk Maxwell believe in a luminiferous aether that electromagnetic radiation "flowed" through.

Evidence against it is the Michelson-Morley experiment and most experiments that confirm special/general relativity.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And if they produce the evidence against it that I asked for I will notify the Nobel committee.

Although I am sure there must have been some things that Darwin was wrong about. Are there any biologists here that can fill us in?

Not a mistake, so much as a significant gap... Darwin indeed noted the tendency of arganisms to change over time, but he had no idea at precisely how this change occured or was transmitted from generation to generation.

That breakthrough belonged to Mendel.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Creationists seem to like arguments from authority

Is the official Atheist logic that if an authority says something therefore it cannot possibly be true?

and falsely attribute the same kind of reasoning to people that accept evolution.

You think that when atheists say, "Darwin said it so it must be true," that's not argument from authority?

I'll start:

Lord Kelvin: "heavier than air flying machines are impossible"

Evidence against: aeroplanes.

Lord Kelvin believed in Newtonian gravitation so of course he believed heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Anyone who believes in Newtonian gravitation must also think heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

 

[Maxwell511]

Not a mistake, so much as a significant gap... Darwin indeed noted the tendency of arganisms to change over time, but he had no idea at precisely how this change occured or was transmitted from generation to generation.

That breakthrough belonged to Mendel.

I think that genetic drift was also a significant gap in his theory. Although it should be said that he did not advocate that natural selection was the only manner in which a species may change.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Lord Kelvin believed in Newtonian gravitation so of course he believed heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Anyone who believes in Newtonian gravitation must also think heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Why? Heavier than air aircraft aren't immune to gravity. Their lift coefficient is merely greater than their gravity one.

 

[Maxwell511]

Is the official Atheist logic that if an authority says something therefore it cannot possibly be true?

No, but I cannot speak for atheists in general. Any statement by anyone can be true but we must leave it to reality, through evidence, to judge the truth of a statement. Reality is the sole arbitrator of truth and not the human mind.

You think that when atheists say, "Darwin said it so it must be true," that's not argument from authority?

If some atheists do that then I would consider them foolish. The point of this thread is to show though that Darwin (and other scientists) can be and are wrong and that it is evidence that is the final judge of truth.

Lord Kelvin believed in Newtonian gravitation so of course he believed heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Anyone who believes in Newtonian gravitation must also think heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

I believe in Newtonian gravitation but also believe in heavy than air flying machines so your statement is false. It just happens that along with Newtonian gravitation I also believe in aerodynamics.

 

[SLP]

Creationists seem to like arguments from authority and falsely attribute the same kind of reasoning to people that accept evolution. So I thought it would be a fun thread to show that we do not follow this reasoning.

The basic premise of this thread is to name one famous scientist that believed in something that is now clearly false and give the evidence against it.

I'll start:

Lord Kelvin: "heavier than air flying machines are impossible"

Evidence against: aeroplanes.

Kelvin also believed that X-rays (i.e., x-ray pictures of bones and gthe like) were a hoax.

Evidence against: Actual x-ray pictures of bones.

 

[SLP]

Is the official Atheist logic that if an authority says something therefore it cannot possibly be true?

No. You see, the sort of authoritarian arguments you folks employ are logical fallacies, since, by and large, the people you cite as authorities are not authorities in the field under discussion.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.

You think that when atheists say, "Darwin said it so it must be true," that's not argument from authority?

Well, for one, I've never heard an atheist say that. Example?
Two, if the subject was his own theory, then a rational person would defer.

Lord Kelvin believed in Newtonian gravitation so of course he believed heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Anyone who believes in Newtonian gravitation must also think heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Why is that?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Why?

You should ask a Newtonian gravitational physicist like Lord Kelvin why Newtonians believed heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Because Newtonian gravitation says that objects are attracted to eachother by virtue of their mass and Newtonian gravitation also claims that heavy objects, such as heavier than air flying machines, fall to the ground by gravity.

Heavier than air aircraft aren't immune to gravity.

An expected response from a Newtonian. The reality of course is that objects that are in flight are not falling to the ground due to gravity. If gravity were to affect a heavier than air flying machine that flying machine would fall to the ground and crash due to gravity.

Their lift coefficient is merely greater than their gravity one.

Are you saying that lift coefficient = antigravity?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I believe in Newtonian gravitation but also believe in heavy than air flying machines so your statement is false.

Well of course you do. You're a fundamentalist. So when Newtonian gravitational physics was falsified by heavier than air flying machines the Newtonian fundamentalists said, "so what if our hypothesis made terrible predictions are was falsified by empirical data, we're still going to believe in it anyway because we're fundamentalists."

It just happens that along with Newtonian gravitation I also believe in aerodynamics.

Lord Kelvin also believed in aerodynamics.

 

[Willtor]

You should ask a Newtonian gravitational physicist like Lord Kelvin why Newtonians believed heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Because Newtonian gravitation says that objects are attracted to eachother by virtue of their mass and Newtonian gravitation also claims that heavy objects, such as heavier than air flying machines, fall to the ground by gravity.

An expected response from a Newtonian. The reality of course is that objects that are in flight are not falling to the ground due to gravity. If gravity were to affect a heavier than air flying machine that flying machine would fall to the ground and crash due to gravity.

Are you saying that lift coefficient = antigravity?

Gravity _does_ affect aircraft. It is only on account of forces acting in the opposite direction of gravity that offset it. But the gravity is still there, influencing the aircraft. The engineers who design it still need to take it into account.