Other than Evolution, what theories controversial? - Long

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’m not looking for a debate on whether or not some theories -should- be controversial or disputed. Much more of a poll on which theories just -are- controversial. I figure this topic could go in either IMHO or GQ, but I don’t want a debate of the validity of arguments on either side, just a notation, so probably not start it in GD. Theories that might or do show up in elementary or high school textbooks.

(College and advanced textbooks are beyond scope of this question, since they often present theories which are more cutting edge and open to revision)

Are there theories in chemistry, physics, biology, etc taught in high schools that meet with resistance? History, civics, etc texts that have theories that go beyond hype and spin, and have real doubters? Are said doubters organized in any way? I’m sure history or science texts mention the moon landing… but there are some that say it was all done on a sound stage in hollywood or whatever. Are these scattered instances or is there an organization working to rid mention of the moon landing from texts?

So, I guess I’m looking for responses similar to this format
Theory ------- opposition
moon landing ------- small, disorganized
evolution ------- somewhat large, organized
big bang ------- somewhat large, organized (see evolution above)

2

I don’t see what, exactly, are you looking for? Theories that have some more or less valid scientific opposition? If so, big bang might qualify, even though the doubters don’t have a good alternative. Super string theories are controversial. Maybe black holes and their less believable alternative theories, and be sure to follow the discussion about dark matter of the universe. I could imagine any of these and many more mentioned in a physics or astronomy textbook sidenote.

Theories and historical facts like moon landing or evolution are not controversial in the same way, doubters of these are usually some sort of conspiracy theorists or just religious nutjobs. Their babblings don’t have scientific or logical validity and if any school textbook even mentioned these as “controversy” or alternate theory, I would seriously suspect the whole book’s reliability.

If you want an exmple of politically significant theory, which has some doubts from actual scientists (even though often in corporate payroll), how about global climate change? It’s certainly a controversy, if you look at the amount of paper certain people use trying to refute it.

3

So you’re talking about ideas which are accepted by all scientists, but not accepted by a certain group of people? I think it’s meaningless to list such ideas because those people are not objecting to specific scientific theories; they are refusing to accept the scientific method itself.

4

Would a list of pseudosciences be a good starting point, as their basic principles would by definition be opposed to some scientific concept? And would the various types of revisionist history be included?

5

Recent article on CNN.com ( that’s where I read it. I’m sure there are other places too) about how the Kansas Board of Eduaction or somesuch is having hearings about whether or not evolution should be taught in the schools. Or taught on the same level as “other” origination theories. That’s what led to my original question. The wondering of what other theories, if any, get contested by boards of ed or similar.

And I didn’t want to get involved in any kind of name calling or validity discussions. Just wondering if there were any others, and if so, might there be a pattern.

6

Just to guage the range of things your looking for – you mention “history” theories. Would holocaust deniers be included in your list?

7

What about the abiogenic oil theory that petrochemicals are formed by non-biological processes? Or the Duesberg hypothesis that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

8

Theory ------- opposition
Homosexuality is genetic----Some think it’s a “choice”.

9

HHHmmmm, holocaust deniers. That’s a good one. Does seem like any resistence is small and unorganized.

Homosexuality as genetic versus choice. Been too long since I was out of school I guess. Do they teach anything at all about homosexuality in elementary school or high school texts?

Little Nemo , I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

10

Cite for you:

Peter Duesberg on AIDS

11

A rather obvious REAL controversy right now is string theory; real scientists are very divided on its merits. This isn’t an evolution or moon landing thing; it’s legitimate science arguing over whether or not there’s validity in string theory.

I also believe that the fate of the dinosaurs still elicits considerable argument.

Just 40 years ago, geologists were split over whether or not continental drift occurs; it’s common knowledge now that it does, but we are not far removed from when many legitimate scientists were convinced the idea was nonsense.

12

Don’t worry. I get that all the time.

Abiogenic oil theory - the conventional belief is that petrochemicals were formed from deposits of organic mass that underwent chemical processes over a period of millions of years. The abiogenic theory is that petrochemicals can be formed from inorganic mass. If the abiogenic theory is true it’ll have a big impact as it implies that petrochemicals may exist in locations where there was never any organic mass and may therefore be more common than the biogenic theory would imply.

Duesberg hypothesis - the conventional belief is that HIV causes immune problems in humans and this manifests itself as a variety of different infectious diseases which are collectively known as AIDS because of their common origin. Peter Duesberg has proposed the theory that AIDS is not a single disease and that it’s not caused by HIV. His theory is that the different diseases all have distinct causes (generally related to drug use) and that HIV is just an associated symptom with many of these diseases rather than a cause.

If you want more details on either theory and why their supporters think they’re correct, let me know and I’ll try to explain to the best of my layman’s ability.

13

meanoldman I know you didn’t want a debate, but this really is a point that needs to be cleared up before the question can be answered.

There are very few theories that are accepted by all scientists. Maybe the theory that the Earth is a sphere is a sphere is universally accepted amongst scientists but that is probably about it. Seriously.

Evolution for example is not universally accepted. It comes very close to being universally accepted but there are a handful of legitimate qualified biologists who reject the theory of evolution. Similarly the germ theory of disease is not universally accepted with a minority (AFIAK only one) medical scientist who genuinely believes that microbes are opportunistic on diseased people, not the cause of disease.
So you see the problem you have here, or at least the problem I am having understanding what you want. There isn’t a set of “scientifically accepted” theories and a distinct set of “opposing theories”. There is an intergrade. At one extreme we have the spherical Earth theory which is universally accepted by scientists and at the other extreme we have something like the theory that infectious disease isn’t caused by microbes which is accepted by almost no scientists. But all theories all along that spectrum are equally scientific although not all are equal in terms of predictive capacity.

And that brings us to the further complicating factor. Because there is legitimate scientific opposition to many of these theories it’s hard to make any blanket statement about the organisation level of the opposition. The opposition is inevitable in part organised scientific research organisation and in part quackery using such science as support.

To give some idea of what I mean consider the following list.

Theory:Microbes cause disease. Opposition: Microbes are opportunistic on diseased individuals. Constituents An individual medical scientist. A largish body of quacks who believe in spiritual healing, mind-over-matter and other New Age beliefs.

Theory:Fossils fuels are the result of geological processes acting on the remains of living organisms Opposition: Fossils fuels are exclusively products of geological processes without any biological input. Constituents A small core of scientists. A somewhat larger body of conservatives who point towards this as a possible flaw in certain environmental warnings and, ironically, a subset of liberals who see it as making global warming even more ‘unnatural.
Theory:Global fossil fuel production is secure for at least the next 30 years Opposition: Fossils fuels and especially oil are going to peak within the next decade and then go into such rapid decline that social and economic catastrophe in unavoidlable… Constituents A small core of scientists. A much larger body of liberals who appear to wish to use this as grounds for social and environmental reform.

Theory:Prehistoric people killed off the vast majority of large animals on every inhabited continent except Africa. Opposition: Climate change that happened to coincide with human arrival killed off the megafauna Constituents A roughly even split on the part of ecologists and palaeontolgists on both sides. The opposition commonly draws from those with overly-romantic notions of a noble savage living in harmony with nature as well as those who believe that there are undesirable political consequences to admitting to ecological damage on the part of primitive humans.

Theory:Burning fossil fuels has led to detectable changes in climate which will continue to get worse. Opposition: Climate change is difficult to measure and we have only very short term reliable records. It’s impossible to say with any certainty of the climate is changing and if it is changing we can’t know whether it is due to human activity. Constituents A minority of scientists, probably around the 10-25% mark. Also a largish core of conservatives who see serious economic problems with jumping the gun on this perceived threat.

Theory:The diversity and complexity of life is the result of random mutation coupled with natural selection Opposition The diversity and complexity of life is due to interference by unspecified intelligences. Constituents A tiny minority of scientists, probably less than 1%. A very large core of people of religious persuasion as well as a number of agnostics who believe it’s all to ‘complex for chance’.
Now having looked at my list tell me which of those theories belong on your list? All of those theories will be found in the HS science texts. Not one of them is universally accepted by scientists and all of them have at leats a small group of quacks who oppose them. For theories like the cause of megafauna extinction or anthropogenic global warming or ‘peak oil’ the quacks are bolstered in no small part by some legitimate scientists and indeed proportionally scientists are no less represented amongst the opposition than they are in the general population.

So can you explain exactly where you draw the line at a scientific theory having a resistance? As I said above almost all scientific theories have a resistance of scientists as well as quacks and that makes it hard to understand just what you want on your list.

14

There are some well-organized holocaust denial groups – viz. white supremacists. But it’s not a widely held theory.

As I understand it, those who believe homosexuality is not a choice have not settled on it being solely genetic. Rather it is very much an open question how much congenital or early childhood factors may influence sexual orientation. (I’m less sure about the early childhood factors.)

15

Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but I think there needs to be a distinction made between what non-scientists call a theory, and what scientists mean when they use the word, because the thread is seesawing back and forth a bit between usages.

Non-scientists tend to use “theory” in the sense of “any concept for which there is some evidence (however small or tenuous) but no definitive proof.” An example would be a statement like, “I have a theory that FDR knew the attack at Pearl Harbor was coming, but did nothing so as not to let the Japanese know we had broken their encryption scheme.”

For scientists, “theory” has the very particular meaning: it describes a plausible principle that is supported by the bulk of the data we have available. Scientists will rarely talk of “proof,” because many times you’re talking about phenomena that can’t be directly measured or observed (object is too remote, timescales involved too long, etc.). However, if an idea has reached the status of theory, it means that it has undergone intense scrutiny by a lot of people and there is a helluva lot of information to back it up. Under this usage, the word “theory” is correctly linked with gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution, to give some examples.

A bit further down on the ladder are hypotheses. A hypothesis is a concept for which there is some evidence, but the evidence might be sparse or conflicting. Furthermore, a hypothesis has to be testable somehow; if you can’t test it, then it’s simply a conjecture.

Looking over the various science-related things that have been mentioned so far, I would classify them this way:

moon landing - (crackpot) hypothesis
evolution - theory
big bang - theory
anthropogenic cause of global climate change - hypothesis, but strong
cosmic strings - theory
abiogenic petroleum - hypothesis
birds descended from dinosaurs - hypothesis
Pleistocene megafauna driven to extinction by early humans - hypothesis
AIDS not caused by HIV - hypothesis
By the way, just because an idea has been elevated to the status of theory, it doesn’t mean that there will never be any changes made to it, or that there aren’t dissenters. Non-scientists with agendas like to point to this to say imply that scientists don’t know what the hell they are doing, when in fact it’s an illustration of the scientific method and progress in action. I like to give such people examples from medicine when they balk at this explanation, because that seems to hit a little closer to home. “Oh, you mean you’d prefer your doctor tell you that you have ulcers just because you’re high-strung, rather than testing you for H. pylori and getting rid of the damn ulcers with some antibiotics. Right.”

16

Thanks for the inputs. I do think I have my answer(s).

But just for matter of possible clarification, I guess I was kinda looking for theories that are so widely held by scientists and historians that they show up in elementary school and high school text books, yet somehow a “fringe” group of some size is so opposed to the theory that they organize hearings etc to try to keep said theory from being taught.

Thanks!