In the year 334 BC (or thereabouts), a particularly interesting individual by the name of Aristotle declared that living creatures can arise from non-living matter (among many other equally interesting theories). That frog tadpoles seemingly appearing out of nowhere in muddy pools and lakes arose from the sand and water. Or that maggots appearing on decaying meat arose from the meat itself (not, as we know now, the result of the hatched eggs of flies attracted to the dead flesh). The theory was Spontaneous Generation – that is, the postulation that life can take form from that which does not contain life. At the time, the philosopher and polymath’s theory was widely accepted, and generally held to be the true origin of thing. Frogs looked like they appeared from the water and mud, so they must be born from them! Right?
Well, wrong of course. With the invention of the microscope, and the development of atomic theory, Aristotle’s theory was completely debunked by the 17th century, and regarded as having little base in scientific fact. Aristotle, despite being a lucid thinker, was clearly limited; he didn’t know about microscopic life. His limitations lead him to an incorrect conclusion. The interesting thing about all this is that something that was once held to be scientific fact was later proved to be completely false! A dizzyingly abrupt fall from grace.
And similar falls litter the science and history books. The Earth was thought to be flat, not the spherical structure we know it to be today. Then followed another faulty theory: the sun was thought to revolve around the Earth, as do all the planets – an idea that was supported by the fact that the sun, stars, and planets appear to circle the Earth, and the physical perception that the our planet is not moving, but a stable structure, the pivot of the universe. Well, wrong again.
And even today, scientific theories are continually given a bashing, proverbially thrown against a wall and smashed to smithereens for being inadequate, for being superseded by other more advanced, more thorough evidence. It’s a continuous cycle of ‘find out, think, discard, think again, find out again, repeat’.
Doubtless, the continuous process of trial and error, of discovery and debunking, of right and wrong, is integral to our development as a species, and to our understanding of things – and it brings up a very interesting question. The question now becomes ‘what do we now know and think is right, but actually isn’t’? What will we discover that will tip the scales of belief in favour of new theories, new ideas, new ways of looking at everything? What are we wrongly convincing ourselves of?
Worth thinking about.
