Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Anything and everything is unlikely. Rather, it may be (and even certainly will be) that they're just incomplete. That what seems to us to be an absolutely proven truth is only one of the special cases, and under certain conditions the laws we know do not work.
In a sense, all current, past and any possible future scientific ideas about the world are “fundamentally wrong”.
This is due to the fact that there is “objective reality as it is” on the one hand, and there are human “representations of objective reality” on the other hand, which are naturally limited by the sensory apparatus at our disposal, that is, subjective and always limited representations. The simplest (already textbook) example in this sense is light. People cannot know in principle what light is – “as it really is.” All we can do is say that light “manifests itself as a particle or a wave, but in reality it is neither.” And what is it? -“And we don't know, because we can't have such an 'idea'. In short, as Landau used to say, “you can understand even what you can't imagine,” so in modern physics, for example, if scientists understand something, they still can't “imagine” what they understand.
As you can see, scientists are very good at admitting this to themselves (and to you), and do not even try to scare them with this.
This is very unlikely, since all “scientific ideas about the world” are based on repeated, reproducible experiments. Theories like string theory or the “theory of everything” that are noticeably out of line with the experimental data may be wrong, but the bulk of scientific ideas are unlikely to be radically changed. Once new data is obtained, they can be reinterpreted within the framework of a broader or more complete theory, as happened with classical physics in the construction of quantum physics. But just so that, like, no, guys, they betray us – Ohm's Law is wrong! This is unlikely.
Otherwise, how would they work? After all, most of these scientific concepts are somehow based on working machines and mechanisms, devices and technological or, for example, medical processes. Their correctness is confirmed by practice, and the remaining “pure knowledge” is too tightly linked to practical ones.