Science's Logical Fallacies: Dismissal Due to Lack of Understanding
Throughout the history of science, there are several instances where an entire concept has been completely dismissed in favor of a "new" way of interpreting the observations. This is alike to throwing gold in the trash, where it then becomes buried and hidden from view.
The Big Bang fallacy
An example of this is the Big Bang model. Prior to the discovery that all galaxies were redshifted in their light spectrum in all directions beyond a certain distance (outside of the so-called "local group"), the concept of the "Steady-State Universe" was the prevailing perspective of the cosmos. This was built on centuries of logical deductions.
Then suddenly, because of one single observation, the viewpoint was entirely dismissed in favor of the Big Bang model. Why?
Redshift can be caused by motion in what is known as Doppler Shift. However, what the Big Bang fails to ever mention is that it can also be caused by gravity. Therefore, this change of perspective from Steady-State to the Big Bang is built entirely on the assumption that motion is the actual cause to the redshift observations. Importantly, this is illogical from an Occam's Razor standpoint, as the end result is the addition of two new fundamentals to the standard model of physics: expansion of space and dark energy.
In one fell swoop, physics was warped into a skewed reality. Why?
This all occurred because the thinkers of the time could not deduce a mechanism by which gravity could cause the observations.
This is very important with regard to the advancement of scientific understanding: Just because we cannot figure out the "how" to an observation within a model based in sound logic and reason does not mean we should completely dismiss the model off-handedly in favor of a model that seemingly provides a "how". Especially when that "how" is by adding more and more complexities to the fundamentals of how the universe supposedly functions.
With regard to this observation, it can be shown that gravitational redshift is capable of producing all distant redshifted galaxies in all directions. This explanation simultaneously arrives at an explanation for how gravity causes electromagnetic fields. Therefore, if logic is used as a hinge and we do not simply dismiss logically sound ideas in haste to find answers (that aren't really answers at all), then we can arrive at a simpler model rather than more complex. How this is so can be read about in several of my other writings: The Big Bang's Big Assumption or The Simple Reality, for example.
This is a common mistake in theoretical modeling based on observations. Frequently, due to our actual lack of understanding "how", we will dismiss actual paths to understanding observations in favor of fairytales.
The Plate Tectonics fallacy
Another such example of overzealous dismissal of a sound explanation for observations based in logic and reason is in plate tectonics. Prior to plate tectonics' arrival on the scene, the expanding earth theory was the prevailing idea of the time. Since then, this theory has been thrown in the mud, trodden over, and spitefully pushed aside as ridiculous pseudoscience. Why? Because the mechanism for how it would occur was not understood.
This is another example of science offhandedly dismissing an idea simply because the "how" could not be deduced. As its proponents could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the mechanism by which the earth would have expanded, it has gone the way of supposed pseudoscience. That doesn't mean that it is. In reality, the Big Bang model and Plate Tectonics, to name a few, are the true pseudosciences.
The Earth did expand, and the how can be read about here: The Mechanism for the Expanding Earth
This derogatory labeling of ideas as quackery, crankery, crackpottery just because a mechanism is not understood, where an idea is scoffed at and claimed to be "disproven" because a new model has been proposed is commonplace in science's fall from logic into dart throwing. Without logic and reason, the fantasies of ponderers who base their model purely in a few critical observations will continue to lead us down paths where the further we explore them, the more difficult it will be to match the models with new observations. This is because they are approximations based on partial evidence rather than exact descriptions based on logic and reason.
There is a reason "natural philosophy" has come to be called "science": because it has lost touch with the importance of philosophy in deducing the interworkings of nature. Logic is not a secondary, peripheral consideration, but rather the only hinge upon which reality can reliably be deciphered. The scientific method only confirms logic and reason, and the true puzzle is in deciphering how.