What currently accepted scientific fields are most likely to be become obsolete?

Akrasia

The advancement of scientific knowledge has seen many paradigms torn apart as discoveries are made that disprove the previous best explanation

Of the current scientific theories, some appear to be on pretty rock solid foundations (where they may be improved and refined, but the underlying theory is almost certainly the correct explanation for the phenomenon described) eg, plate tectonics

Other theories are much more contingent on postulations which are necessary due to incomplete data, and it is possible that a new theory may emerge which will overturn the previous accepted theory.

For me, I think in a hundred years time we could be looking back at some of our psychiatric and medical practices and think that they are on par with the blood letting and potions of yore.

I think a lot of material sciences will eventually be completely superceeded by advanced biotech and nanotechnology and we will view the current manufacturing and extractive industries as primitive activities

I think quantum physics will eventually be understood in such a way that the crazyness of the current theories are tamed and apparently impossible phenomenon like entanglement and superposition hare discovered to have mechanisms that are more logically consistent with our understanding of how the macro world functions.

What do other people think?

IRWolfie-

Akrasia wrote:

The advancement of scientific knowledge has seen many paradigms torn apart as discoveries are made that disprove the previous best explanation

Pre-scientific ideas that people had about geocentricism, and tentative hypotheses etc were disproven precisely because there was a lack of evidence. But the famous modern theories have mountains of evidence. Classical mechanics wasn't disproven or obsoleted in that sense. It is still perfectly valid in it's area of applicability. What was removed was the conceptual picture people had about reality.

That is why people are careful to explain that Science can never prove something to be true, what science does instead is to focus in on the truth by proving other things to be false. By gathering evidence, we narrow in on the truth. Our current theories are the best explanations that we have, and their strength is in the number of tests performed against them.

Akrasia wrote: »

For me, I think in a hundred years time we could be looking back at some of our psychiatric and medical practices and think that they are on par with the blood letting and potions of yore.

Psychiatry and medical practices aren't science, and aren't attempting to be science. Like engineering, they often attempt to apply scientific understanding to an application. The goal in this case is to help people; understanding why it helps is not as important. Often though, in psychiatry, they do not apply current scientific understanding from Psychology but resort to pseudo-scientific explanations like Psychoanalysis.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think a lot of material sciences will eventually be completely superceeded by advanced biotech and nanotechnology and we will view the current manufacturing and extractive industries as primitive activities

Nanotech is part of materials science. Improvements in nanotech wouldn't make traditional materials science superseded in the scientific sense, since that is reserved for theories. The underlying theories will still be perfectly valid, although possibly used less.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think quantum physics will eventually be understood in such a way that the crazyness of the current theories are tamed and apparently impossible phenomenon like entanglement and superposition hare discovered to have mechanisms that are more logically consistent with our understanding of how the macro world functions.

Entanglement and superposition are very much possible, they just conflict with our common sense (which is imperfect). Quantum mechanics is fully consistent with the macroscopic world, and in fact by the correspondence principle it predicts it. Quantum mechanics will never be obsoleted; because its predictions have been verified in so many different ways. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is perhaps the most confirmed theory in existence. What ever comes after to unify quantum mechanics with relativity will be required to be reducible to Quantum mechanics on the small scales. Quantum effects are here to stay.

maria_81

I think there's a fundamental difference between a field of technology/medicine becoming obsolete because newer techniques have been discovered and a whole theory of science being disproved or replaced by a newer one.

I think IRWolfie expanded on this basic difference very well.

Personally, evolutionary biology is the only area of science that I would consider myself well read on. I don't think there's going to be any major changes in the basic theory, but there are many areas which are disputed. But often it's just a question of emphasis (e.g. the importance of punctuated equilibrium).

And as IRWolfie said about psychology, it's more of a technique than a science. The "Ego" as described by Freud isn't proposed to actually exist. It's more of a concept useful for describing personalities or a particular type of thinking. And Freud's psychoanalytic theory has in fact generally been replaced by different tecnhiques and therapy systems such Gestalt therapy, Schema therapy, CBT etc....

Akrasia

While general medical practice is not a science, medical science is and I would be very surprised if medical science in the 22nd century will look back on medical science in the early 21st century and think that all of our theories on causes of and treatments for disease are valid

For example, our use of Antibiotics to treat bacterial infections could possibly be found to be counter productive in the long run (it is conceivable that pro-biotic treatments could be the way of the future, where instead of killing an invasive bacteria directly, we introduce a competing bacteria which is benign and will replace the invasive bacteria and prevent re-infection

In Psychiatry and Psychology, I know there is a lot of quackery out there, but psychiatrists and researchers in psychiatry consider themselves to be performing science.

Personally, I think psychiatry will be replaced by Neurology as we gain a deeper understanding of how the brain works and in a hundred years time, the psychiatrists couch will be completely obsolete.
Psychological treatments may still be required as will behavioural therapies, but there will be treatments that involve targetted re-wiring of neural pathways for psychological disorders such as Bi-Polar or Scitzophrenia

IRWolfie-

Akrasia wrote: »

For example, our use of Antibiotics to treat bacterial infections could possibly be found to be counter productive in the long run (it is conceivable that pro-biotic treatments could be the way of the future, where instead of killing an invasive bacteria directly, we introduce a competing bacteria which is benign and will replace the invasive bacteria and prevent re-infection.

This is still not a science. It is about the application of scientific understanding. The actual science behind medical practice will still be valid, even if specific techniques are no longer used. The question then becomes; what technique do you think will become obsolete first?

In Psychiatry and Psychology, I know there is a lot of quackery out there, but psychiatrists and researchers in psychiatry consider themselves to be performing science.

Firstly, I'll say that psychology isn't psychiatry. Psychology is science while psychiatry usually isn't science. There is a lot of dubious claims in psychiatry, but a lot lot less in psychology (it seems psychiatry lags behind current understanding which comes from psychology).

Researchers in psychiatry do not all think they are performing science, in fact some actively reject that they should use the scientific method for psychiatry. But, it isn't important what they think, so much as what they do. They often rely on suggestions which are unfalsifiable, and they make specific claims which are contradicted by the evidence.

As far as I'm aware, in most clinical studies, the different forms of psychiatry often perform equally well as each other and to a person just talking the issues through with someone.

Akrasia

Psychiatrists are all medical doctors who tend to treat cases of mental illness with medical treatment and drugs, Psychologists are not medical doctors and don't have the legal power to prescribe drugs.

I don't know where you get the idea that psychiatrists tend to reject the scientific method. I know freudian Psychoanalysis has been largely disproven and there are some die hard Freudians around who don't seem to care about the evidence, but most modern Psychiatrists have moved away from Psychoanalysis in favour of other, more evidence based forms of CBT and pharmacological treatments.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/psychiatry-bashing/

Capt'n Midnight

Akrasia wrote: »

For example, our use of Antibiotics to treat bacterial infections could possibly be found to be counter productive in the long run

Antibiotic resistance was seen as early as 1942.
cba looking up the dates but by the late 40's it was seen as a big problem.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_3/S165.full

In the 1940s, penicillin was introduced for the treatment of infection; as early as 1942, strains of S. aureus resistant to penicillin had been detected in hospitals. Within 2 decades, ∼80% of both hospital- and community-acquired S. aureus isolates were penicillin resistant.

(it is conceivable that pro-biotic treatments could be the way of the future, where instead of killing an invasive bacteria directly, we introduce a competing bacteria which is benign and will replace the invasive bacteria and prevent re-infection

That's beginning to sound like an ad for yoghurt.

In theory it's fine but in practice most of the nasties are already on our skin or living down the back of our throat just waiting for our defences to drop. This is why coughing into your elbow or wearing a face mask is a great way of reducing your risk of infection, in most cases it's putting your paws to your mouth/nose/eyes that starts the rot. The trick is to stay healthy so your immune system can keep the little blighters in check.



The Russian idea of using phage to target the bacteria directly might be a better approach.


It's important to remember penicillin is a natural product, there are no magic bullets in nature either.

IRWolfie-

Akrasia wrote: »

Psychiatrists are all medical doctors who tend to treat cases of mental illness with medical treatment and drugs, Psychologists are not medical doctors and don't have the legal power to prescribe drugs.

I don't know where you get the idea that psychiatrists tend to reject the scientific method. I know freudian Psychoanalysis has been largely disproven and there are some die hard Freudians around who don't seem to care about the evidence, but most modern Psychiatrists have moved away from Psychoanalysis in favour of other, more evidence based forms of CBT and pharmacological treatments.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/psychiatry-bashing/

I agree fully with that article. I didn't say all psychiatrists weren't applying science. I was careful with my words. Notice the phrase "Science-Based Psychiatry". That should tell you that there is non-scientific psychiatry; and it is quite large. I think (or rather hope) a large section of current psychiatry will be replaced with science based psychiatry.