Anomalies

To what extend do anomalies prevent the progress of science?

are you talking about exceptions to rules already proven? or about events unusual that cannot be explained yet?(or maybe not at all)

I'm talking about observations which don't 'fit' in normal scientific theory. Back in the Middle Ages, argue that the sun is the center of the universe...that didn't fit into the theories back than.

Another example: Earth curst displacement and the movement of the poles, this used to be absolute nonsense some time ago but now is approved scientific knowledge, what if scientists had approved that theory already back than, where would we have been now (on a scientific level)?

Originally posted by Ruubz
I'm talking about observations which don't 'fit' in normal scientific theory. Back in the Middle Ages, argue that the sun is the center of the universe...that didn't fit into the theories back than.

Another example: Earth curst displacement and the movement of the poles, this used to be absolute nonsense some time ago but now is approved scientific knowledg ...[text shortened]... proved that theory already back than, where would we have been now (on a scientific level)?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
science is in constant motion. we cannot possibly claim to have discovered all there is to know in a certain domain and we cannot claim that our current knowledge is correct. we must treat all new theories objectively and compare them with the old ones.

for example einstein could not believe that "god plays dice" as he described quantum physics and now w ...[text shortened]... your theory it is obvious it is wrong or insuficiently developed and you should rethink it.

so to sum it up, if this is what you are referring to, then anomalies help the progress of science, not hinder it