As others have pointed out, the basic scientific method isn’t what’s changing, but the conclusions that it leads to sometimes do. There are many famous examples.
Newton had explained the laws of motion and the law of gravity. Eventually Einstein upended both. Newton’s versions work well under most circumstances that humans normally encounter, but not more extreme ones.
Einstein was also the one who upended the previous belief that you couldn’t destroy matter or energy; you could only change their form. Turns out you can change either one of those into the other.
But for every major example like these, there are many many examples where the conclusions based on science were right, and many examples where it was mostly right and only minor refinements have happened over time.
Well the more you know, the better you can do science in the future. For example. Ppl Show certain symptoms and die. We call it cancer. Then we find out they have too many leukocytes. We call it leukemia. Then we find out some have other leukocytes than others. We divide it into myeloid and lymphatic leukemia. We find even more specific cells and acute or slow progression. Then we find dysplasias. We have the Myelosyplastic Syndromes. Then we find that some drugs work better when there are specific genetic aberrations present. Then we see that the MDS can transition into an acute myeloid leukemia. So we try to find rules how to distinguish between these two. Then we find out, that it’s a fluent transition so we have to define the entities regarding their genetic abnormalities instead of the celltype and number.
As you can see, when our knowledge changes, our science changes. From symptoms to microscopic differences and from there to molecular differences. The more you know the more you can go into detail. So the science is always changing in this way.
Latest Answers