Examples would be like the geocentric theory and the idea that planets traveled in circles rather than ellipses which were considered scientific "truths" until Kepler and Copernicus proved otherwise. We have scientists at CERN that could possibly be close (within decades at least) of finding holes in Einstein's relatively.
the only thing appalling here is that most of you need to ridicule others beliefs to validate your own "intelligence." Another sad showing of programmed minds here on CB.
But I wil say - the whole flat earth theory is puzzling. I just don't know who would benefit from lying about the earth being round. But if that is Kyries truth I respect that, and him as well for voicing it when he probably knows [dang] well this is the type of reaction he would receive.
One of the best attributes of science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not.
That is not quite true. First, because prevailing scientific beliefs have been proven wrong at times in history. There exist things we currently believe to be true that will likely be proven to not be fully true 100 years from now. At best, science is true to the extent that humans have shown capable of understanding at this moment.
While thinking the Earth is flat might be objectively false, thinking the Earth is a sphere might not be objectively true. It's just the best that we are capable of understanding it right now. It very well might be a hypersphere or some higher dimensional shape that we aren't capable of understanding.
What do you mean by 'prevailing scientific beliefs' (setting aside for a moment that science requires no belief, rather it is a demonstration). One gets the sense that pythagoras' theorem will not be getting debunked anytime soon.
Have you got any good examples? I don't mean to sound dismissive by the way, genuinely curious and in search of bar chat.
I think this is a slight strawman. You are claiming that there have been scientific "truths" debunked, but there really havent. That is a non-scientist conception. Science doesnt yield "truths," it yields "most likely theories based on current available evidence with likelihood of the validity of the theory depending on strength fo evidence and subject to refinement in the future."
I mean, Newton didnt discover "truths." He formulated theories that are, and have been, highly reproducible. Those theories for how the universe works have been refined, frequently. So have einstein's, and they continue to be. But they arent "truths" that are now "wrong." Its not like structures built based on newtonian physics suddenly collapsed when einstein formulated his theories. Just refinement, constantly, with each new generation.
Same for your planetary example. Its not like scientists are like "sun around earth. Done, end of discussion." Then "eartg around sun in circles. Done. End of discussion." Its more like "here are the observations i have made, here is the math i went through, these observations i think would be explained by the earth orbiting the sun in a circle." Then someone else syaing "well if the earth orbited the sun in a circle, we'd expect to see v, w, x, but im seeing w, x, y, which would be better explained by a slighy elliptical orbit."