"Favourite" scientific fallacy?

[Eldritch]

Inspired by this:

I am doing research for a new book and would hope to elicit informed responses to the following question:

• The flat earth and geocentric world are examples of wrong scientific beliefs that were held for long periods. Can you name your favorite example and for extra credit why it was believed to be true?

Please note that I am interested in things we once thought were true and took forever to unlearn. I am looking for wrong scientific beliefs that we've already learned were wrong, rather than those the respondent is predicting will be wrong which makes it different from the usual Edge prediction sort of question.

Several responders pointed out that the phrase "scientific belief" in my question was not well defined. Did I mean beliefs held by scientists or beliefs by the lay public about science. The answer is that I am interested in both, though I should stress that this is not at all what my next book will be about. I do not know enough about science to write anything about the subject. However, for the book I am thinking about stuff that we get wrong, often for long periods of time, and am doing some wondering about whether there are some principles defining when such mistakes are more likely to happen.

This exercise has been fantastically interesting, and if anyone is prompted by this to send in more ideas please do. I am also interested if anyone has thoughts about what the principles might be, if, indeed there are any.

[Liffrea]

Some scientific fallacies have roots in simple common sense, the earth is self evidently flat and the sun obviously orbits the earth, go outside and have a look……there you are you see!

For me the belief that humans were fundamentally different from everything else in the universe; put to bed by Western chemistry and genetics, both of which prove we are parts of a greater whole, the universe.

I also have a liking for Lamarckism, which is actually receiving some interest of late.

[antonio]

Some scientific fallacies have roots in simple common sense, the earth is self evidently flat and the sun obviously orbits the earth, go outside and have a look……there you are you see!

For me the belief that humans were fundamentally different from everything else in the universe; put to bed by Western chemistry and genetics, both of which prove we are parts of a greater whole, the universe.

I also have a liking for Lamarckism, which is actually receiving some interest of late.

I agree on your first paragraph, and on the second too, if you're cheering that ancient intuition which seems clear feedback our former progress and evolution: we always feel to be above animals and material universe, the falacy is f.e. to link that with cruelty against other creatures, the typical PC thinking on Nature which ends up considering Human as a kind of invasive specie if not directly a virus.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by antonio
I agree on your first paragraph, and on the second too, if you're cheering that ancient intuition which seems clear feedback our former progress and evolution: we always feel to be above animals and material universe, the falacy is f.e. to link that with cruelty against other creatures, the typical PC thinking on Nature which ends up considering Human as a kind of invasive specie if not directly a virus.

I meant it to mean exactly what it says, humanity is a part of the universe not apart from it. I would imagine as a Roman Catholic you consider man to have a spiritual component that exists beyond physical death and that you believe in some metaphysical reality? I’m the opposite, I believe man is spiritual but not that he has a spirit/soul in a religious sense, I believe his spiritual beliefs are an evolutionary adaptation, and, consequently, that we project human qualities onto the world. For me there is no component of man that doesn’t rest in the physical universe (though I’m perfectly able to accept that the universe is probably more than the four dimensional one we directly perceive, in this case consider physical as the possible cosmological interpretation of the universe, which may contain more dimensions).

To consider man “invasive” would be to suppose that he wasn’t of the earth, which is absurd in any context. Echo-hippies and other assorted sandle wearers have a fairy tale view of nature, a sort of return to Eden complex. If they are advocates of nature they should have no problem with how man interacts with the world. There is no real threat to man from other species and we are smarter than other species, ergo we propagate and we dominate, as a consequence other species die off or adapt to the conditions man creates, perhaps regrettable but entirely natural. Of course that’s not to say we should wreck the earth, we wouldn’t survive if we destroy the fragile balance of the environment that supports humanity.