- Matthieu Miossec
- Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
- United Kingdom
Doctoral Student - Genetic Medecine (Congenital Heart Disease),
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is a superceeded scientific theory really wrong?
If a scientific theory has been superseeded by another theory that makes more accurate predictions, does that make the previous theory wrong or merely incomplete? In which ways is it wrong if it is?
Is the statement that an old theory is wrong misleading when talking about science and the way it is carried out? Does that not give the false impression that every new scientific theory starts from a blank slate?
I'd like to keep this conversation focused on actual science, that which was devised using the modern scientific methodology rather than just guesswork of much older ages.
Closing Statement from Matthieu Miossec
"I think the superseded theory is perhaps not so wrong as it is obsolete and thus less useful" - Walter Radtke
In a nutshell.













Frans Kellner 100+
Any theory is the best guess for an answer from the data that's available or from experience.
No theory is ever wrong nor is it ever right on an open quest.
Only if the question is confined within given limitations the answer can be right, no theory is needed.
The misleading part is to think you know something by having a (good) theory.
Walter Radtke
Gerald O'brian 50+
When a theory is superseded by another, it's only on the account that the new one brings more understanding and knowledge of what you're trying to figure out. So it's not about being wrong, since the new one has no right to claim that it won't itself be superseded (thus wrong) itself.
At any moment, it's about finding the best possible explanation with what you got to work with.
There have been bad theories, though. Theories that failed at explaining anything. Like the savanah explanation of our bipedism...