/media/bill/HOWELL_BASE/Projects/DrumLib - kid science event/expanding Earth versus continental drift.txt www.BillHowell.ca 19Sep2017 initial ********************************************* WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEORIES THAT ARE WRONG? The conventional explanation of the scientific process states that theories that are proven wrong are dicarded in favour of better theories. However, my own approach is to retain "multiple conflicting hypothesis" for several reasons : 1. How do you really know a theory is wrong? Often theories are rejected or promoted on very uncertain grounds. 2. There is much to be learned from theories that are wrong. For example, 3. Finally, I find that when I have a favourite theory: +-----+ I magically become a believer in the theory. I become blind to its weaknesses and failures, through processes including "confirmational bias" and "selective filtering". Confirmational bias is when one uncritically accepts [data,theories,models,analysis,conclusions] that support what you believe in, and I reject out-of-hand strong [data,theories,models, analysis,conclusions] that run counter to your belief. I start promoting my favourite theories and attack theories that run counter to them. In essence, I become a tool of the theory and its disciples, rather than the theory being simply a tool for my use when it is useful. +-----+ Looking at modern science and the history of science, I am of the opinion that essentially all scientists suffer from these same problems, as we see long-term errors persisting and a continuing resistance or lack of ability to consider new concepts within the scientific community. 4. Furthermore, promoters of theories that are wrong are often the ONLY source of information on strong information that shows that the overwhelmingly dominant mainstream theories have serious problems and failures. 5. Even if a theory is wrong, it can lead to great questions and challenges, and parts of the theory may prove very useful. ********************************************* EXPANDING EARTH VERSUS CONTINENTAL DRIFT As one simple example of a "wrong theory" that has much to teach us, let's take a look at how the continents of the Earth came to their present positions. The overwhelmingly dominant consensus is the "Continental Drift" theory, which states that the continents drift around the Earth, driven by the processes of expanding rifts in the ocean floors, plus subduction zones where the ocean floor slides under the continents. This theory agrees with a great deal of geological data for both the continents and the ocean floor, so it is a very good theory. The Expanding Earth hypothesis is an alternative theory for how the continents move around, which is NOT accepted by what I perceive to be the vast majority of scientists. In fact, one thing that I really like about this theory is that friends of mine who do or have done research in geology really hate it. This hypothesis claims that the Earth has expanded especially in the last 200 million years, which in geological terms is a very recent part of the Earth's supposed 4.5 billion years of age. A leading proponent of this theory, which is almost as old as the Continental Drift theory, is Comic book artist Neal Adams, who became famous for artwork of Batman, the Green Lantern, and other comics. While Neal Adams does not claim to be a [scientist, physicist, or mathematician], he has put together an impressive series of [analysis, videos and commentaries] to support the Expanding Earth hypothesis. It probably seems strange that a non-scientific amateur would dare to challenge all of the world's expert scientists, but this happens regularly. Most of the time the amateurs are wrong, but you would be surprised at how often [bright, hard-working] amateurs win over the long term. Let's look at part of one of Neal Adam's simpler videos on the Expanding Earth hypothesis : Now let's do a simple test ourselves to see if the basic idea works : So what does the Expanding Earth hypothesis do well? - it provides a "complete fit" of all of the continents - ocean floor data works better with What do critics say about the Expanding Earth hypothesis? - the Earth can't expand. To me, this is the main problem, and while I'm not comfortable with many of the concepts proposed to explain expansion, some do have some plausibility, and some of the hard critiques aren't well based. Don't forget that the dominant theories for the formation of the Eaarth DO assume growth, usually through agglomeration. But they assume that this only happened early in the Earth's formation. - it is not required - the Expanding Earth hypothesis provides no explanations beyond what we already get from Continental Drift - many categorical statements made by Neal Adams appear to be wrong (albeit to me these do not affect the viability of the basic hypothesis). - Neal Adams does point out what critics have not - that the theory is "brittle" in the sense that only one process of continental movelments works with the seafloor data, whereas Continental Drift is more flexible in that sense. However, if you look closely at most of the critiques, they are not always solid. What is right about Continental Drift theory - Continental Drift matches the data for geology across continents - What led to the confirmation of Continental Drift was seafloor data showing the oceanic rifting, and subduction processes - These strengths are also stregths of the Expanding Earth hypothesis. What are the critiques of Continental Drift? - There aren't enough subduction zones. While I haven't done my homework here - I have looked at many seismic data that are not convincing proofs of subduction. If this point is correct, Continental Drift theory is wrong. - Many of the critiques levelled at the Expanding Earth hypothesis apply as well to Continental Drift theory. As a warning, before deciding to keep one theory and throw out the other, keep in mind that Continental Drift and Expanding Earth can be seen as being complimentary theories. # enddoc