Anti-science

[JLives]

That's how science works, it's dynamic based on the current evidence. I don't know why people have a hard time accepting that. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they found new information.

[zzontar]

That's how science works, it's dynamic based on the current evidence. I don't know why people have a hard time accepting that. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they found new information.

Another way to look at it. With the Komodo Dragon example, the scientists followed a water buffalo with an open wound from a dragon. The buffalo took refuge in a small pond, which was filthy and contaminated from animals defecating in it daily. The scientist concluded that the wound became infected from the bite and not from the water. This was far from enough evidence to come to a conclusion and therefore their conclusion was wrong.

[Omnitheo]

they drew an incorrect assumption based on the bacteria in the komodo's mouths. Yes there was septic bacteria, however that bacteria likely came from drinking that same water. Once researches obtained more data, it became apparent that this was the case. Water Buffalo have a natural instinct to take refuge in water when attacked or threatened. Of course after being bitten, running into a septic pond and exposing an open wound to that bacteria triggers the infection.

[JLives]

And then it was corrected.

[zzontar]

That's how science works, it's dynamic based on the current evidence. I don't know why people have a hard time accepting that. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they found new information.

Let's say you find a lipstick in your husband's car. You boil inside and are convinced he's having an affair until your daughter comes in and asks if anyone took her lipstick in from the car. By your way of thinking, you were not wrong about your husband having an affair, you just didn't have all the evidence. This way it's pretty well impossible to be wrong, which seems very unscientific.

[JLives]

You came to your conclusion based on the evidence you had in the present.

[Fancy]

Thing is, it wasn't presented as theory, it was presented as fact.

One would need to actually read the paper instead of relying on an accurate representation on any site. Here's an update:

Abstract: 

It has been speculated that the oral flora of the Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) exerts a lethal effect on its prey; yet, scant information about their specific oral flora bacteriology, especially anaerobes, exists.

Speculate is a key word here.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1638/2012-0022R.1

[I Think]

Lets just dump science and switch to religion, as we all know if it's wrote in the bible it must be fact.

[Bsuds]

Better still we can start our own Church/Religion. Think of the tax breaks.

[zzontar]

You came to your conclusion based on the evidence you had in the present.

Are you saying that back when scientists said the world was flat, they weren't wrong?

[I Think]

Are you saying that the current theory of evolution is not true because it is called a theory?

Then Pythagoras's 'theory' may not be true........................ darn I have been using as true since childhood.

[Fancy]

Are you saying that back when scientists said the world was flat, they weren't wrong?

Theories are based on information at the time - theories change with new information.

[Fancy]

Are you saying that back when scientists said the world was flat, they weren't wrong?

Might read up on that "theory" a little more.

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[2]

Wikipedia - also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

[zzontar]

Are you saying that the current theory of evolution is not true because it is called a theory?

Then Pythagoras's 'theory' may not be true........................ darn I have been using as true since childhood.

Evolution is fact, just look at flu strains.

[Fancy]

Evolution is fact, just look at flu strains.

Interesting reading:

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html