# What are the Strongest Scientific Consensuses That Turned Out to Be Possibly, or Definitely, Wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Tags:** science-math\ **Created:** [September 8, 2026, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888 "2026-09-08T00:45:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/61 "2026-09-09T15:40:27Z")
That’s overstating the case, at least for anything since ~1900. The idea there is a “consensus” of stubborn conventional thinkers doesn’t have a lot of support. The examples in this thread show that. While there are always a few holdouts, when actual evidence, not just hypotheticals, showed up, the previous conventional thinking has been abandoned pretty quickly. That’s the opposite of stubborn. And that’s the key point. It takes more than a “what if” without any empirical support. Somewhat ironically, the idea of a stubborn consensus is itself something people stubbornly insist exists. But also one that is embraced by charlatans and cranks to great effect. As Carl Sagan noted, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. > [@bump](#): > > I think there’s also maybe a latent question there about the utility and worth of researching things that are outside the scientific consensus, such as FTL travel or communication. I think most people would agree with this, but the question is always how much time and effort to devote to it. Funding for pie in the sky ideas has never been great, and scientists are also people who have to eat and pay rent. There is very little money for general scientific research that is not directed at a specific goal. Perhaps that should change but it is a prerequisite ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/62 "2026-09-09T15:47:08Z")
There’s plenty of examples of this, LOTS of support here, that’s the point, get right down to it. Goes the other way too, I suppose. “It will never go off. And I speak as an expert on explosives” Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the president, on the Atomic bomb. Was that a consensus view? Somewhat. A lot of people knew it could be made to work, but Leahy was probably an outlier. Not at first though. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/63 "2026-09-09T15:48:08Z")
Somewhat a consensus view? And Leahy stubbornly refused to recognize when he was wrong after it went off? ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/64 "2026-09-09T16:38:49Z")
Keep in mind this was one of the single most expensive undertakings the government was asked to perform, during a two-front global war with full mobilization. “Will it work?” was a reasonable question to ask. But there weren’t any guarantees. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/65 "2026-09-09T17:26:45Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > “Bleeding” had a lot of adherents in the medical community. Killed George Washington. It actually was either worthless or hurtful. Other than a few rare conditions, bloodletting is useless. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/66 "2026-09-09T17:45:32Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > Keep in mind this was one of the single most expensive undertakings the government was asked to perform, during a two-front global war with full mobilization. > > “Will it work?” was a reasonable question to ask. But there weren’t any guarantees. Sure, and that’s rather my point. To the extent there was a consensus, it was that it would work but the ultimate confirmation was Trinity. That’s hardly an example of a stubborn consensus that refused to admit it was wrong. This seems more like it is conflating the idea of a consensus with the archetype (stereotype?) of a stodgy authority figure (not figures) who hasn’t kept up with the times ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/67 "2026-09-09T18:22:19Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > I think the overall point is Science is most definitely not “Consensus”, simply because consensus is not necessarily equal to correct by any stretch. Observations and theories have to be proven and/or disproven. And has been seen countless times, the “consensus” can be awfully stubborn about recognizing when its wrong. That was much more true in previous centuries than the present day, where the scientific method has taken a firm hold. Modern scientific consensus exists simply because of vast amounts of evidence, supported by hundreds or thousands of publications in dozens of reputable journals. The risk of overstating the case like this is that one may be tempted to be unrealistically dismissive of anything labeled as “scientific consensus”, and drift instead to conspiracy theories and other nonsense. This is especially true in areas that vested interests are trying to push as “controversial” when they really aren’t, such as anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. This is a case where scientific consensus exists because the evidence is incontrovertible. Lots of real debate continues, of course, as it always does in science, but the debate is focused on things that to the layman would be academic minutiae, not the big-picture consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/68 "2026-09-09T18:41:13Z")
Did doctors actually recommend people with TB to move to dryer climates so that their lungs would ‘dry out’ or was that just a pop culture device? For decades the story of President William Henry Harrison related how he had caught a cold after having given a long speech while poorly dressed for the frigid temps, strongly implying if not outright stating that it was cause and effect. This happened in the 1800s, but I suspect most doctors believed well into the 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/69 "2026-09-09T18:44:24Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > For decades the story of President William Henry Harrison related the story of how he had caught a cold after having given a long speech while poorly dressed for the frigid temps, strongly implying if not outright stating that it was cause and effect. Certainly if you _had_ a cold or flu, then went out and did that- it would be bad. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/70 "2026-09-09T19:27:54Z")
I’ve also been thinking there’s a sort of difference in “consensus”, or maybe more in the validity of theories that plays into this. To use the germ theory of disease as an example, the scientific “consensus” was that bad air caused disease. But that was more conjecture than anything else; there wasn’t a body of empirical evidence and experimentally validated theory underpinning it. Once there was, and how it worked could be explained and proven, the whole miasma theory went right out the window, never to return. Same with ulcers- they weren’t well understood until the 80s. I think maybe it’s when there’s a certain level of the unknown/unexplained involved. I mean, there aren’t flat-earth researchers or physicists, but there could be FTL physics researchers, because there’s still a fair amount of unknown/unexplained stuff in that realm. And paleontology can always have a new fossil found that upends how we believe a certain lineage of life evolved. So there’s always that uncertainty/unknown there. ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/71 "2026-09-09T19:47:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > but the debate is focused on things that to the layman would be academic minutiae, not the big-picture consensus. How old are you? I’m old enough to remember “Acid Rain” and “Nuclear Winter” and the “Ozone Hole” in the atmosphere, and “The Coming Ice Age”. These were all fairly big stories or ran in the background in the 1970s and were scientific “consensus” or at least what passes for it. Modern science is just as much a “vested interest” as anybody else, depending on who is paying the bills, or near enough. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/72 "2026-09-09T19:58:27Z")
The “Coming Ice Age” was never a scientific consensus in the 70s. It’s a bizarre claim to say it ever was. It was one outlier that was never broadly accepted in the scientific community, which was already warning about the warming of the planet. It was, however, taken up in popular media and then erroneously held up (to this day, apparently) as a consensus theory. The others were real - the effects of acid rain were actually observed. There are plenty of pictures of acid damaged trees in the Black Forest in Germany, for example. The ozone hole is still there and measurable, though it is slowly healing due to actions we started taking decades ago. It’s actually one of the few successful examples of getting nations across the world to cooperate on environmental action. It’s bizarre to include these last two - there is direct physical evidence they existed and still exist in the case of the ozone hole over Antarctica Nuclear Winter is absolutely a possibility, but I guess the ultimate proof is to have a global thermonuclear war. That seems an odd one to point out as a bogus consensus theory ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/73 "2026-09-09T20:04:56Z")
The ‘Coming Ice Age’ was never a consensus, but it was strongly supported by one influential broadcaster who was unfortunately a major scientific adviser to the BBC. Nigel Calder also wrote for and edited New Scientist, so his non-mainstream convictions had a disproportionate effect on public thinking. In reality most environmentalists at that time knew that carbon dioxide was on the increase, and would lead to global warming. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/74 "2026-09-09T20:27:39Z")
Science is factually based. Anyone perfoming the same test or experiment, anywhere in the world should get the same answer. Consensus is the wrong word for factual results. Scientific facts cannot be the result of several people agreeing on an idea. The example of the speed of light in the OP is a fundamental law of the universe and not an agreed upon consensus. There is no science at all in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/75 "2026-09-09T20:27:58Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > As Carl Sagan noted, they laughed at Columbus This has been beaten to death. Columbus tried to grab at a discredited theory that the world was a globe but much smaller than scientific consensus. He fudged the number (definition of classical measure, and also guesses how far Marco Polo travelled) to come up with a small number. Likely, incorporating some knowledge or rumor of secret Basque fishing grounds of shores to the northwest. Educated people knew the evidence pointed to a much bigger globe (not flat) and that the Indies were 15,000 miles away, not 3,000, beyond the reach of their sailing ships. In fact, Columbus barely made it to a surprise destination. The educated of assorted European courts were correct to laugh at him. > [@bump](#): > > I think there’s also maybe a latent question there about the utility and worth of researching things that are outside the scientific consensus, such as FTL travel or communication Consider that most newer physics is simply a refinement of what was known before. Relativity is a general description of which Newtonian physics is a special case that works for most of the frame of reference that we encounter in our daily lives. FTL if possible will likely be a new theory that simply says, “yes, in these special circumstances, Einstein’s relativity is only an approximation.” Much as, yes, elements are composed of atoms, but there are some circumstances - an extension of the theory - where they can be subdivided. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/76 "2026-09-09T20:28:24Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > but the debate is focused on things that to the layman would be academic minutiae, not the big-picture consensus. > > How old are you? I’m old enough to remember “Acid Rain” and “Nuclear Winter” and the “Ozone Hole” in the atmosphere, and “The Coming Ice Age”. These were all fairly big stories or ran in the background in the 1970s and were scientific “consensus” or at least what passes for it. Modern science is just as much a “vested interest” as anybody else, depending on who is paying the bills, or near enough. I’m not sure what your point is with this argument. Acid rain was a real problem and curtailing it was one of the few real successes of the EPA. The “Coming Ice Age” was unscientific bullshit mainly perpetrated by irresponsible media, and mainly promulgated by a particularly irresponsible cover story in _Newsweek_ in the early 70s. The actual reality at the time, far from asserting a new ice age, was that the National Academy of Sciences was urging the need for more research, saying that, far from an assertion of a new ice age, regarding climate change, that the effects of CO2 were clear, but that on the overall climate issue “we don’t even know the right questions to ask”. Further research from that point, and most notably by the periodic aggregated reports of the IPCC on research to date, had resolved those critical questions beyond all doubt. Modern science is inherently skeptical of its own conclusions, and very conservative about unequivocally supporting them. When there’s a consensus, it’s a pretty good bet that they’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/77 "2026-09-09T20:34:12Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > This has been beaten to death. Columbus tried to grab at a discredited theory that the world was a globe but much smaller than scientific consensus. Hey, you’re preaching to the choir. I would have picked different examples. Tell off Carl Sagan! But the underlying point is still valid that the archetype of the lone voice fighting for the truth against a sea of naysayers is more fantasy than fact ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/78 "2026-09-09T20:38:29Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > How old are you? I’m old enough to remember “Acid Rain” and “Nuclear Winter” and the “Ozone Hole” in the atmosphere, and “The Coming Ice Age”. These were all fairly big stories or ran in the background in the 1970s and were scientific “consensus” or at least what passes for it. Acid rain and the ozone hole were both real problems. And we managed to convince people that they were real problems, and hence convinced people to solve them. The “coming ice age” was never consensus, and was barely even discussed by scientists, except for a few on the payroll of fossil fuel companies. And nuclear winter has yet to be tested, and nobody wants to test it. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/79 "2026-09-09T20:38:39Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I would have picked different examples. Tell off Carl Sagan! I blame Gershwin. ---
**Author:** ![echoreply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/echoreply/32/3641_2.png) [@echoreply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/echoreply)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888/80 "2026-09-09T21:16:00Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Science is factually based. Anyone perfoming the same test or experiment, anywhere in the world should get the same answer. Consensus is the wrong word for factual results This is not a reasonable view of how science actually works on the ground. The same experiments frequently produce different results. Explaining why the results are different when everything seems the same occupies a huge amount of time and generates many words. Sometimes discovery of previously unknown variables, other times just that the results are probabilistic, and we don’t have enough results to get a handle on the probabilities. What scientists are left with are large amounts data with sometimes contradictory results. Often even the results themselves are up for debate. So consensus is what happens when no fundamental law is apparent. And as this whole thread is trying to get at, it is not the consensus which is fact, it is no more than a consensus. The whole point of the scientific method is that new data will change that consensus, and over time move the consensus towards truth. If scientists knew the truth before they started, then there would be no need to do the experiments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-strongest-scientific-consensuses-that-turned-out-to-be-possibly-or-definitely-wrong/1032888.md?page=5)