In the past there have been “facts” that almost all experts in the field didn’t believe in.
Are there any current examples? Though the problem is that a majority of the relevant experts would disagree…
I don’t know how you’d know. If the majority of experts in a field believe something, it’d be a tough call to say it’s incorrect. I think it’s only something you’d find out later on.
I’ve mentioned one specific example before. A small portion of historical linguists, including some who are very highly esteemed, accept something called the Amerindian Hypothesis. However a large majority of historical linguists (especially those specializing in Amerindian languages) reject the hypothesis, and go beyond mere rejection to ridicule and insults. I have no linguistic expertise, but much of the argument comes down to common-sense and mathematical intuition so I’ve formed my own opinion on the debate. (And was met with vehement objection from the Board’s linguists when I mentioned my opinion. :rolleyes: )
So, if experts like Greenberg and Sapir are correct about the Amerindian hypothesis it would meet OP’s criterion. Are they? I think so, but we won’t decide the question in this thread. 
Here’s Greenberg rebutting one of his most prestigious critics.
BTW I found this about linguistics:
http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/there-is-no-language-instinct/
“For decades, the idea of a language instinct has dominated linguistics. It is simple, powerful and completely wrong”
That title of that article (the language instinct is “completely wrong”) is just someone’s view so it might be incorrect.
Most homeopaths believe homeopathy works, the rest don’t care that it doesn’t.
For many years most geneticists accepted as dogma the aptly named Central Dogma. The Central Dogma was postulated by Francis Crick, of Watson & Crick fame. Being the godfather of modern genetics, his ideas were given great weight.
Questioning the Central Dogma was considered no way for a young geneticist to have a career. But the Central Dogma was wrong.
Initially it basically postulated that the flow of information was unidirectional, DNA makes RNA. RNA makes proteins. Crick insisted that this was an oversimplification and what was prohibited was information flow from protein back to RNA or DNA.
We now know of proteins like the reverse transcriptase enzyme which allows RNA to make DNA. And there is other weirdness such as inteins which are in effect a protein self-editing to become a different protein and which can edit DNA.
One that I’d propose as a possibility in geology is mantle plumes. When plate tectonics first came about, there were all these “hot spot” volcanoes like Hawaii and Yellowstone that weren’t associated with a tectonic setting that caused volcanism. The explanation they came up with is that there’s these spots where hot material is continually uplifting from the mantle via… some mechanism. Over the years this has very much become the accepted wisdom. Any intro geology textbook from the past 40 years will tell you all about them, and mountains of research have been published on them.
There’s really two big problems with them, though. One, there’s not a whole lot of measurable direct evidence for their existence. Some recent work with seismic tomology seems to show them in some cases, but not all and even then the veracity of that imagery is debated. The theory has also required constant tinkering to make it work for every hot spot volcano, resulting in a whole host of varieties of mantle plume which sort of obviates its usefulness as a predictive theory. Mantle plumes have sort of been the “a wizard did it” of tectonics.
There’s a whole group of loosely associated geoscientists who think that more detailed tectonic models can explain all or most of the individual hot spot volcanoes without need for the mantle plume model. They’re still very much in the minority, but they include a lot of well-respected members of the earth science community. Here’s their website: http://www.mantleplumes.org/
ETA: Of course, I agree with audiobottle’s summation that it’s hard to say something is really “wrong” if most of the experts agree on it. But mantle plumes is my proposal for one that they might turn out to be wrong on.
Yeah, I guess it all comes down to how you define ‘expert’. Are creationists experts in their field?
Driving instructors (In my experience) almost universally believe they are making a difference
How about virtually all religious “experts”? Especially in their metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.
There’s tons of stuff in medicine which is firmly based on conjecture and flawed research. This has lead to many such moments over the past few years (such as the trans-fat debacle)… Unfortunately, this has also “provided comfort” to a lot of outlandish theories (such as the anti-vax debate).
But nowadays, it almost seems like a tired, tawdry headline that, yet again, upends conventional wisdom in medicine…
Music producers: “Louder” is better.
A classic example from geology concerns J. Harlen Bretz and his theory of the formation of the Channelled Scablands in eastern Washington.
In the 1920s he proposed that these were the result of enormous floods (500 cubic miles of water released in a short time). This idea was received by nearly all prominent geologists with scorn and ridicule.
But it’s now accepted that the great Missoula Floods (peak flow possibly 10 times the combined flow of all rivers in the world) were responsible, and Bretz is recognized as one of the all-time heavy hitters in his field.
Many people who consider themselves experts about thermocouples believe the junction creates the voltage signal. It doesn’t. The voltage is created along the length of the wires according to the Seebeck effect. The junction is just a junction, a connection.
Many people consider they understand relative humidity but think it’s defined by 100% being the highest possible humidity. It isn’t. It’s the equilibrium humidity in a closed system that contains both liquid water and air and in which the interface between water and air is flat. In clouds, for example, where there is something like an equilibrium between water droplets and the surrounding air, the relative humidity is well above 100%. This is according to the Kelvin effect in which the radius of the droplets is related to the equilibrium humidity. We’ve heard, no doubt, of supersaturated air – if 100% RH were the highest possible, there would be no such thing.
Xema great point. At least Bretz lived long enough to witness his validation. That’s a fascinating part of the NW USA, have been there once and I want to go back. Yeager Rock (pics) is easy to access and is interesting to see. So is Dry Falls, and the visitor’s center there.
Dry Falls is pretty astounding. If you can go back, make sure to see Palouse Falls.
How narrowly are we defining expertise and fields? I could probably come up with a few things that most physicists “know” about relativity, for instance, that most relativists know are wrong, and I’m sure that, say, CalMeacham could do the same for optics. Do those count, because they’re elements of physics that physicists are wrong about? Or are the relevant experts the specialists?
Wow, nice, and thanks. More pics here: palouse falls - Google Search
I’d previously seen pictures of the falls head-on, but not that left side view with winding river and canyon off to the right.
According to this article, Telling stories from stone tools (behind a wall, unless someone is a subscriber to Science News), everything archaeologists thought they knew about hominid toolmaking is wrong. The new hypothesis is that we really don’t know much if anything at all about flint tools.