It had to do with the nature of what we now know as combustion and oxidation, which, when posited seemed to be the best explanation of how fire or rust consumed matter.
As more evidence became available, and experiments were designed to test the Phlogiston Theory, it was disproved because better explanation were made to fit the available evidence. That's how the Scientific Method works. That's how it is *supposed* to work. On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > I love your one size fits all philosophy. > > Please explain the Phlogiston Theory to the class. > > . > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>What's your point? >>>No one is arguing that over time theories cannot be improved, disproved >>>or deprecated by new empirical evidence. >>>So what's your point? >>> >> >> I suspect that like many he prefers things written in stone and immutable. >> Unfortunately for those with that need for absolutism, most scientific >> research and theory are not like that. >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342589 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
