Has the majority ever held an idea, then denied it, then held it again?

Great Debates
1

Perhaps this belongs in GQ, but I expect that the question is too ill-posed, and the likely answers too controversial, for that forum.

First, some context. The actual question is in the last paragraph of this post.

Leaving aside all of the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution over its fringe opponents, I’ve always thought that one of the better forms of “meta-evidence” (i.e., evidence that there is good evidence) is the following.

There was a time when the theory of evolution was held by a minority (or by no one at all if we go back far enough), while creationism was a deeply entrenched belief held by everyone, lay-person and expert alike. Yet, somehow, the theory of evolution triumphed over this initial disadvantage to become the dominant belief, while creationism was relegated to the fringe. So, at some point, nearly all of the experts, many of whom had, till then, been creationists, were convinced that this new idea of evolution was adequately supported by the evidence, even though it overturned their previously held beliefs.

To me, this serves as strong “sociological” evidence that the scientific evidence against special creation is very good, even though I may not be qualified to evaluate much of that scientific evidence myself.

The line of reasoning I’m describing here is a certain kind of appeal to authority. The principle behind usual appeals to authority is “it is unlikely that, in a disagreement between authorities and non-authorities, the non-authorities are correct”. The principle behind the argument above is “it is unlikely that authorities held a correct belief and then were convinced of an incorrect belief”. Here, by “authorities”, I mean “the majority of recognized experts”.

This principle can also be applied to disputes between the center and the fringe on Newtonian vs. Einsteinian (or quantum) mechanics, germ vs. demonic theories of disease, and heliocentric vs. Ptolemaic celestial mechanics (though, even on the fringe, hold-outs on that last one are very few).

My question is, how reliable is this principle? More specifically, have there been times in the history of science where a particular theory was held by the establishment, then was dropped in favor of another theory, and then returned from obscurity to become the dominant theory again?

2

A few thoughts:

  1. Nutrition – it’s hard to pick up a novel from the '30s without reading about a character who is rather stout due to “starchy foods.” Then came the low-fat era. As you know, the pendulum has swung or is swinging and I don’t think anyone in the establishment would unreservedly recommend recourse to “complex carbs” the way, say, Jane Brody did in the '70s.

  2. Psychiatry – bad example as this is not really a science, but the theories have been all over the lot, as between chemotherapy, electroshock, behavioral therapy, Freudianism, etc. I’d imagine you could find some points in time where, say, drug therapy has been in favor, out of favor, in again (and perhaps, out again) as the treatment of choice (say: 1965 (Valium); 1975 (behavioral therapy); 1995 (Prozac); 2003 (doubts about Prozac)?

  3. Sex. This is a whole other argument, but the traditional view that, say, men had an inherently greater sex drive than women was for awhile (and perhaps, by some, still is) challenged as purely a societal “construct” (was this ever a majority view among whatever “science,” apart from sociology, purports to study these things? I don’t know.). I doubt you’d find many scientists at this point who would deny some hardwired sexual differences in sex drive, behavior, cognitive processes, etc.

3

Leeches being used again for medical reasons.

http://www.biopharm-leeches.com/pdf/brochure.pdf

4

Nutrition is an excellent example. My husband is a diabetic with heart disease. One week he’s advised to eat X. The next week Y. First it was cholesterol (in the food) that was the problem. Then saturated fats. Then trans-fats. Back to saturated fats. Now it’s high fructose corn syrup.

Butter good. Butter bad. Butter better than margarine at any rate.

:smiley:

Julie

5

Antisemitism in Europe was big in the Middle Ages. It then declined, only to rear its head in the 20th century with the growth of fascism. It again declined after WWII, but in the last few years, it is again increasing.

6

December did you see the word ‘majority’ in the title? Perhaps in Middle ages Europe antisemtism was a majority view (I don’t know), even in facist Europe, I would not say it was a particularly the view the majority (though Hitlers propganda and indoctrination could well of made it a majority view in Germany by the 2nd world war, again I don’t know) But nowdays it is the view of only fringe extremists and I would go as far to say that it is probably more prevalent in the US than it is in most Western European nations (unless your doing a criticism of Israel=antisemtism number).

7

You have a point about antisemites not being a majority. However, as the worst of European examples, take France (please!)

No doubt the attackers are a minority, but I would fault the majority of French people for being too complacent about them.

8

My history professor always used to argue that all of civilization has had many cycles between having common thought based on science and then religon.

She also argued that recently both parties have kind of gone their own ways and refuse to speak to each other anymore. :smiley:

9

This seems like a good place to reiterate Planck’s Principle:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grow up that is familiar with it.”