History of Science

Schleiden and Schwann came up with what is known as "The Theory of Cells" or "Cell Theory." The main principles of "Cell Theory" are:

• All cells come from cells
• A cell is the basic unit of life
• All organisms are made of cells

The human body obtains water from three sources. They are;

# Beverages- liquids that we drink, makes up 60% of the total amount used by the body.

# Foods- Much of the food we eat has a high water content (particularly fruit and vegetables)- 30%

# Metabolic water- Body water produced by cellular metabolism- 10%. Source- Marieb E, Hoehn K (2007) Human Anatomy and Physiology, 7th edn, Pearson Education, San Francisco.

Gregor Mendel is regarded as Father of Genetics. His work was not accepted and taken seriously until 1900 when the concept was rediscovered by Hugo De Vries.

His work was not appreciated because

1. He was too ahead of his time.
2. Corelation between maths and science was not done during his period.
3. Published in a journal which was not much popular and not much circulated.

Organisms are classified by domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, Genus, and species. Their scientific name is composed of their Genus and species.

They are categorized by their DNA, and physical appearance.

This question will lead us down some fascinating if murky paths. No, the truth of scientific knowledge is not decided by majority vote in a formal sense. However, it is often decided or powerfully influenced by prevailing cultural, religious, political or historical context. This may sound like waffling, or confusion over the difference between 'scientific truth' and opinion. The truth is that there are some serious reasons to doubt that 'scientific' theories or principles can ever be thought of as absolutely true. This position has nothing to do with creationism, intelligent-design-ism, or any theological beliefs. There are difficulties in the reasoning that anoints any scientific theory as absolutely true, and they have to do with the basic process of science itself. The scientific method can be thought of as a heuristic that always (in theory) moves forward, toward models with greater and greater explanatory and predictive strength. It also leaves open further questioning that will itself be subject to the heuristic.

There has been a great deal of progress that has come out of science, and this may be evidence that explanatory and predictive models have played out well so far. But there is a certain Western mindset that readily accepts our present world as a state of advancement. There are other ways of looking at the world we have engineered and concluding that we have run amok, or at least that we haven't gotten some of the important stuff right at all. I am wildly enthusiastic about science, but we need to proceed with far more humility and caution than has been our banner up to now.

It's decided by "Scientific Methods", but will only be true until such time that new evidence is discovered.

The argumentum ad populum seems frequently to be used to state that something must be true simply because the majority believe it to be true. Thus something is right because it is popular. The history of science contains numerous examples which demonstrate that the majority has often been wrong.

This fallacious argument is frequently used in relation to the creation versus evolution debate. In the past when most people believed in creation and in the present when most scientist believe in evolution makes no difference to the facts of science. What evidence is before us has not changed, although the evidence in a number of areas has greatly increased in volume. What has shifted is the consensus position. The truth has not changed nor will it be decided by a majority, but by the evidence.

Since truth of science is clearly not decided by majority vote it is obviously decided by something else - that being the application of rigorous scientific principles, without fear or prejudice to reach conclusions which can be tested and are repeatable.

On the other hand, scientists are trained to reject theories that are contradicted by facts or evidence, and remain skeptical of theories not well supported. So while the opinion of the general populace on any scientific subject might be poorly informed, among scientists the "majority view" is most likely correct.

The idea that scientific fact is set down by the rule of the majority is ridiculous. Facts are facts. Will a vote of over half a group of physicists suspend the effects of gravity? Certainly not. But gravity is hard to ignore. What about things that are a bit "less certain" than gravity?

Where there are mounds of evidence and several conclusions are possible, the one that makes the most scientific sense is the one that will be adopted. There will be dissent, of course. Some one or another will offer a good idea that shifts the track of the thinking, but it won't convince the majority of those most familiar with the arguments. If the greatest weight of the evidence points to one main conclusion, that conclusion will ultimately prevail. It has greater force of argument and will shoulder aside opposite presumptions.

Let us examine evolution versus creation. The majority opinion did not favor evolution in the beginning. The majority at that time was wrong. In the words of the philosopher Pete Townshend, "won't get fooled again." But there are those few who still tear at evolution because they believe in creation. What is their thinking?

The evolutionists do not argue that evolution is correct because the majority of scientists favor evolution over creation. That idea is specious. It seems to suggest that evolutionists believe they are correct because of a majority of scientists think so. Most of those who fully understand the scientific principles are convinced. But evolution is not true because the overwhelming majority of scientists think it's true. Rather, the overwhelming majority of scientists think evolution is true because a preponderance of the evidence points in that direction.

Scientific thinking evolves. Denying reality, wishing it away or refusing to accept it does not change it. Scientific "truth" is not subject to the governance of majority vote. The natural world operates by its own rules. Puzzle them out, understand them, accept them and adapt them to improve your life and the lives of your brothers and sisters.