AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Opinion Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8868/099
1 Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Department of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Aden University, Aden city, South Yemen.
*Corresponding Author: Othman Salim Hussein Al-Fleesy, Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Department of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Aden University, Aden city, South Yemen.
Citation: Othman Salim H A-F. (2019) Why the wrong Scientific Theories are not Corrected and Re-evaluated again by Scientists. J. Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. 5(2); DOI:10.31579/2578-8868/099
Copyright: © 2019 Othman Salim Hussein Al-Fleesy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Received: 31 October 2019 | Accepted: 13 November 2019 | Published: 18 November 2019
Keywords: scientific theories; therapeutic approaches; developmental disorders
In the journey of science and scientific discoveries, many scientific theories and hypotheses developed by scientists received acceptance and became famous in the past, but now, science proved them wrong1. To the point of wondering, one asks himself, how these theories went, and how scientists have accepted their interpretation at that time to be rejected now?.
In the journey of science and scientific discoveries, many scientific theories and hypotheses developed by scientists received acceptance and became famous in the past, but now, science proved them wrong1. To the point of wondering, one asks himself, how these theories went, and how scientists have accepted their interpretation at that time to be rejected now?. Criticism and defining the wrong theories within science is mandatory in order to improve it to play its role in propelling the wheel of sciences forward in society to set the style of life to a better situation. It is well known in science, that a scientific theory is a comprehensive set of ideas that explains a phenomenon in nature. It is based on large amounts of data and observations that have been gathered for proposing a hypothesis , which could be tested and refined by additional research, and they allow scientists to make predictions , which might be wrong and rejected in the future at any moment to have a new one. That is why the scientists said: Medicine is the field of possibilities and probabilities.
Some of wrong theories in the history of science
During my review of literature looking for wrong theories, I found many wrong theories in the history of science, some of these famous wrong theories are:
1-Spontaneous Generation: The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter (the origin of life from inanimate matter).
It was rejected by an experiment by Louis Pasteur: where apparently spontaneous generation of microorganisms occurred.
2-Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.
3-Endobiosis about mitochondrial origin. The illogical, non-valid and a funny theory (the cell is originated from bacteria).which have been proved wrong by Dr Alfleesy2. The cell was first discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665. He was an English microscopist and was the first person to identify and coin the term Cell.
4-The “four humours” theory of human physiology: From Hippocrates (famous wrong theory).
5-Miasmatic theory of disease: the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air
Rendered obsolete by the germ theory of disease, the germ theory of disease emerged in the second half of the 1800s and gradually replaced miasma theory.
6-Zuckerman theory about oogenesis [3]. In which Zuckerman proposed that there is no human female oogenesis after birth. Debate over Zuckerman's theory to reevaluate and correct it, certainly will lead to another scientific views. Because, putting the specific creating process that Zuckerman proposed as such, up-to-date- is unacceptable. It must be revised again on the base of alfleesy new scientific opinion that might occurred in embryological development during the process of creation which is known only by the God.
7-Calvin Bridge theory [4], about Down syndrome as a result of decaying of human female ovum (after the age 35 years).the proposal of Calvin Bridge and Thomas Hunt Morgan in the spring of 1910 for the so called (non-disjunction), as an origin of Trisomy21 and Down syndrome. This theory, was proved wrong by Dr. Alfleesy 5, it must be cancelled, discarded and re-evaluated again by scientists.
8-The false claim of the South Korean scientist who announced that he had cloned human embryo.Dr alfleesy refuted this false claim by his article titled : human being cloning is a false claim and fabricated results6.When the theory is wrong and topped the front pages of newspapers by a false claim and a lie, you have to think that the scientist broadcasting this theory is a liar and dishonest fraudster intent on misleading the public for personal gain ,and was interested in funding rather than truth as the Korean scientist did , who had claimed the human being cloning6.From my point of view , this is the most dangerous action in the history of science and human life. It is possible that the theory is wrong and it is possible for a scientist to have errors, but being honest and his intention was to serve science and people, the science forgives him his mistakes. Even world-renowned experts like (Pauling, Einstein) had mistaken, but they were genuine and respectable scientists.
9- Stress theory of ulcers. For decades it was believed that stress and poor eating habits caused ulcers. Nobel Prize for Medicine (2005) , has awarded to the researchers (Barry J. Marshall, Robin Warren ) who proved that peptic ulcer disease are caused by a bacterium— not stress — caused ulcers.
10-Luminiferous aether or ether theory: ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing"), was the postulated medium, (that the ether filled the whole universe), for the propagation of light.In 1905 Albert Einstein published one of the most influential physics papers in history: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. In this paper he described his theory of special relativity. This theory brought to an end the theories of luminiferous aether by using the principle of relativity, that the laws of physics are true in all frames of reference, and by assuming that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.
Discussion
One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is online self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations, hypotheses, and then devises a theory to fit these observations. Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted1. At any point in the future, if contradicting evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. This is how science works. Dozens of theories were proven wrong recently, after a long time and needless to say there have been a lot of theories discarded along the way and superseded by others. But even these wrong theories served the science by knowing their errors and defining the correct one. However, just because you have reached a high degree of confidence in a theory does not mean it is true. At any time, a further prediction and experiment could "false" the theory. In (2005), Stanford professor
John Ioannidis published a paper in PLOS Medicine entitled "Why most published research findings are false". Ioannidis' theory is that most scientific studies are wrong as a result of bias and random error. In fact there is an important point that escaped from the views of the scientists and in need for further explanation.
During my review of literature, I found many theories have been Put by scientists were not subject to this label (theory) especially theories related to creation. A best example of this is the number of chromosomes by Paint when he firstly counted them (48), but after correction by Joe Hin Tjio (1955), became (46). This study for knowing the number-as I think- is not a theory or related to hypothesis, it relates to: what do you see? What are your means and tools to know? Because this is a fixed number (46) as the exact number of human chromosomes - except in abnormal conditions - and your abilities, facilities, and experience is the only hand for solution. In previous centuries we could not see bacteria, cell..etc. But after the invention of microscope , we saw bacteria, that means , the bacteria were found but we could not see it .Also ,remember : (if you don't know you don't see).
My story with publishing
I have experienced an event during my practical and professional life in regard to publishing, looking back, this experience taught me several lessons. First, I learned that the key of the science is still in the hands of some ignorant persons. The other important thing, the experience taught me that democracy is a theoretical term but in reality there are many persons like to be a despotic ones. You may find a scientist who rejects your scientific opinion and that is acceptable, even if his opinion was wrong, because he is a scientist and this is his opinion. But if your opinion was rejected by a person who is far away from science or medicine, what could you do? So I want tell you this story because of its importance to researchers as follows: after Dolly cloning (1996) by Ian wilmut, and after Genome declaration in (2001) by Dr. Scot, a hot debate have raised about human cloning in different journals and different international TV channels. Many appeals from presidents , prime ministers , Islamic corporations and institution and religious scholars throughout the world , requesting scientists to stop this step (human being cloning).At this time(2003), I sent an article(opinion) to Nature Magazine , I wrote briefly: human cloning is a false claim and fabricated results ,This process will not work or succeed at all, and scientists who claim this are lying. At that time and moment, I was the only one in the world to say certainl: (this is impossible to occur). Simply, because the inspiration of spirit is the order of the GOD. ALLAH says in the Holy Qur'an: (They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: “The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that (is communicated to you).The Editor of this Journal (Nature) rejected to publish it, without justification or a reasonable opinion and sent me a letter written on a card (see photo of the card). He wrote: (The Editor thanks you for your communication but regrets that he is unable to publish it. He regrets also that he cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter).You see here, the Editor was unable to publish my article, I accepted this, because it is the policy of the Journal (not science or democracy), but to say: the Editor cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter, this expresses his attitude to accept another opinion.
This, also demonstrates another factor which runs counter and hinders any scientific ideas and obstacles the progress of science. In fact when I was young , I believed that these countries and Journals represent pure Democracy , and I was dreaming about visiting or contacting them until this event, I knew the democracy of Nature Journal. Do you know why? Because Dr. Randal Scott said and asked in his speech: Is there a God? Can the spirit of humankind be defined? etc., of meaningless words. While I wrote: There is a Creator (Allah) of the universe and life. Albert Einstein stated: This uniform universe has a creator. It is a problem that to find some Editors and others believing in the words of Dr. Scot that there is NO GOD. Dr. Ahmed Zwail said in celebration in USA: The Nobel Prize is easier than publication in Washington Post. And he was honest. This is the sophisticated policy of Editors and Journals everywhere. The Editor forgot to remember that Nature magazine started with Inaugural issue( A zero issue number ).Anyhow , later on, and after about [13] years(2016) I published my article in other Journal. The other problem, some scientists have not the intent to study and revise again the wrong and new theories. This is the main reason for the delay of the science wheel which does not progress faster. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) ideas had been published in 1866 but largely went unrecognized until 1900, these scientific ideas made the base for heredity. However, these brilliant scientific ideas have been delayed for 30 years.
Comment and advice
In 1916 Einstein published his general theory of relativity and with solved equations, he found that the universe was unstable and that it was expanding. He was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe. And because Einstein was influenced by the theory of the static universe, he circumvented the solution and added
An extra term (the cosmological constant also known as lamda) in working out equations in general relativity that described the universe in the situation when it is "static” that is, not expanding. This was a big mistake in his life, he always mentioned it and regrets. Einstein famously refused to believe in expanding universe and the field moved on without him. So, can you imagine, what would be the speculation and imagination, if Albert Einstein had read the following verses from the Holy Qur’an, and put his theory on this sound and solid base?
a)-Allah says: (And the heaven we constructed with strength, and indeed, we are [its] expander) 8.This means, certainly, that the space (universe), is expanding.
b)-And Allah says: (Have they not seen that we set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? And Allah decides; there is no adjuster of His decision. And He is swift in account9). This means, certainly and with no doubt, that the earth planet is contracted and reduced.
C-Allah says: (Have you not considered your Lord - how He extends the shadow, and if He willed, He could have made it stationary? Then we made the sun for it an indication10).
I do not know what is the interpretation of this verse? , and what will be the discovery in future in regard to this verse (C)? But I am sure that Einstein or other astronomers having the brain and mind of Dr. Ahmed Zwail or Albert Einstein will have new imagination and new scientific ideas basing on this verse. Surprising that the Muslim astronomers did not answer this puzzle of universe , despite the answer is found in the Holy Qur'an (since 1440 years ago).Finally What will happen to your mind and thinking , if scientists discovered in future , that the direction of the double helix of Watson and Crick(1953) was Anticlockwise not clockwise. Despite all these efforts no one will know details of creation except the GOD. Allah says: (I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders (as assistants) 12.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
