New knowledge vs paradigm shifts (split from Mind-brain)

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Randomness is at the heart of science. We owe our existence to chance, random quantum fluctuations, evolution - random mutations and natural selection, molecules bumping into each other, etc. I understand this. However, in my readings of the science literature over many years, I have been amazed at how much complexity, organisation and structure that appears to come out of nothing. And I have read many articles that seem to edge their bets toward non-randomness events. This is what I think has not been properly addressed in science. Take my numerous posts in the mind-brain thread. They are replete with studies and statements hinting at maybe something more, but this is mostly ignored by the general science community. The foundation of science is that everything occurs by chance and I am saying that my modest readings seem to tell me differently. Is science being too dogmatic about randomness and chance events? you tell me!

Aside from the issues with the use of "randomness" to explain phenomena, the science community typically does not ignore findings. Often things are misinterpreted or oversold in popular science articles or folks are just unable to tease them apart (e.g. due to technological limitations). We first build tools in order to look at things we want to look at. Every biologist is well aware that things are more complicated- we start off with simple models and then add on. To a layperson that might sound like being surprised all the time, but really we all know that we are just working on different pieces of a puzzle. Every now and then there is a paradigm shift, but the frequency has gone down considerably over the last decades. We are more filling out blanks than finding complete new puzzles. But that does not excite the public so often stories come out how things are going to revolutionize things (and to be fair, young scientists often think that way). But folks who have been around longer tend to see it as further parts of the puzzle and just continue (up until something really unexpected happen). Nothing I have seen in these threads fall under that category, though.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Aside from the issues with the use of "randomness" to explain phenomena, the science community typically does not ignore findings. Often things are misinterpreted or oversold in popular science articles or folks are just unable to tease them apart (e.g. due to technological limitations). We first build tools in order to look at things we want to look at. Every biologist is well aware that things are more complicated- we start off with simple models and then add on. To a layperson that might sound like being surprised all the time, but really we all know that we are just working on different pieces of a puzzle. Every now and then there is a paradigm shift, but the frequency has gone down considerably over the last decades. We are more filling out blanks than finding complete new puzzles. But that does not excite the public so often stories come out how things are going to revolutionize things (and to be fair, young scientists often think that way). But folks who have been around longer tend to see it as further parts of the puzzle and just continue (up until something really unexpected happen). Nothing I have seen in these threads fall under that category, though.

Thank you for this!

I will continue posting what appears to me interesting findings in the mind-brain thread.

[Luc Turpin]

An interview with Denis Noble.

“I think that things must come up to date in evolutionary biology”

“Organisms can actually use the chance and using it all the time”

“It (the immune system) goes to the nucleus and says please stop the error correction and allow the breaks to occur and then we will select out of those the very few that can grab hold of the virus. I am saying that this is general. It happens in bacteria when they resist antibiotics. It happens in cancers.”

“They (cancer cells) hyper-mutate; they use chance to get novelty”

“If you can bring this stochastic process under some kind of control, use and do the selection….”

Talking about Dawkins “I don’t think the great majority of research biologists are any longer going down that path in the way in which he laid it out. I am sorry to say; I think the ground has shifted quite a long way”

“I don’t think that people like Richard yet know that; that things have really moved on rapidly”

“There is a shift here; its in principal of enormous proportion ….” It has big implications”

Talking about gene sequencing; “from the point of view of what was promised twenty odd years ago in relation to cure for cancer, cures for diabetes…..there was to be cures coming out of the sky ……….what have we found, the association level is quite tiny”

Talking about genes “there isn’t a program there”

“ There is no such program in the genome”

“When are we going to wakeup to the fact that it’s been twenty years now sequencing as many genomes as we can and the output as promised as simply not appeared”

“Darwin would have never accepted that natural selection was the only mechanism”

“With the same genes you can have a very different behavior”

“Gene are influencing, not causal”

“We are not determinate like computers”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I

[CharonY]

Most of thar is fairly trivial and it is missing a fair bit of nuance. But most physiologist and systems biologist have long realized that except for simple functions the genome holds limited capacity. Only in conjunction with a given cellular environment does physiology and function happen.

That being said, the genetic background is still the major, though no longer exclusive element of inheritance which is a different level of functionality. Dismissing one aspect due to evidence of another does not make sense.

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Most of thar is fairly trivial and it is missing a fair bit of nuance. But most physiologist and systems biologist have long realized that except for simple functions the genome holds limited capacity. Only in conjunction with a given cellular environment does physiology and function happen.

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

That being said, the genetic background is still the major, though no longer exclusive element of inheritance which is a different level of functionality. 

The "major" part of your contention is being questioned by recent evidence. It see more an "interplay" in the litterature.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Dismissing one aspect due to evidence of another does not make sense.

Why bring this up when no one as I know it is doing so.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this.

The "major" part of your contention is being questioned by recent evidence. It see more an "interplay" in the litterature.

Why bring this up when no one as I know it is doing so.

What are you trying to prove here?

That 'we' don't fully understand is trivially demonstrable, that you think you do is trivially denied; if you think that equal's a stalemate, you need to learn chess... 

[Luc Turpin]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What are you trying to prove here?

That our worldview is not adapting to evidence. We acknowledge that there is change in knowledge, but remain mostly silent on what the implications are for how we live out our lives. Science has real world implications. Dawkins had a sizable impact on western society. And we now find out that science has possibly passed him by, but we still do not make the course correction in our headspaces.

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that you think you do is trivially denied;

You should know me better by now; I have no such pretention. And if I was, you would be right in trivially denying me!

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

if you think that equal's a stalemate, you need to learn chess... 

No surprise here! I am a mediocre chess player.

[dimreepr]

Such is the meaning of life...

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Such is the meaning of life...

+1 for this!

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this.

No, your quotes are mostly about function and do not show much of a link regarding inheritance.  Function arises from interplay (obviously) it is  it is not the interplay that visitors inheritance. If you got cancer your kids won't necessarily inheritmit. But they could inherit a higher likelihood of getting cancer.

dawkins had more impact on popular rather than professional science, and I think we are still discussing the former.

 

[swansont]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:03 AM, Luc Turpin said:

Talking about Dawkins “I don’t think the great majority of research biologists are any longer going down that path in the way in which he laid it out. I am sorry to say; I think the ground has shifted quite a long way”

“I don’t think that people like Richard yet know that; that things have really moved on rapidly”

I thought your position was that science doesn’t shift; these are quotes that imply that this is indeed happening.

If models need to be replaced, they have to be shown to be wrong. You haven’t shown that. 

 

I recently saw there were some interviews on “new physics” and one of the comments, from Chad Orzel, was "Will there be new physics? We’re not done with the old physics yet".  i.e. we know where the holes are in physics and where new physics is needed, but there’s a lot of science to be done in the established areas of physics. I think the same applies to biology.

[Luc Turpin]

43 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No, your quotes are mostly about function and do not show much of a link regarding inheritance.  Function arises from interplay (obviously) it is  it is not the interplay that visitors inheritance. If you got cancer your kids won't necessarily inheritmit. But they could inherit a higher likelihood of getting cancer.

I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time. It is easy to acknowledge the fatality of it all, but when it comes to having at least a bit of regognition of our control over our lifetime destiny, then the talk is less forthcoming.

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

dawkins had more impact on popular rather than professional science, and I think we are still discussing the former.

I stongly disagree that Dawkins did not have a significant impact on the scientific community as a whole. It reinforced already prevalent assumptions.

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

I thought your position was that science doesn’t shift; these are quotes that imply that this is indeed happening.

If models need to be replaced, they have to be shown to be wrong. You haven’t shown that. 

 

I recently saw there were some interviews on “new physics” and one of the comments, from Chad Orzel, was "Will there be new physics? We’re not done with the old physics yet".  i.e. we know where the holes are in physics and where new physics is needed, but there’s a lot of science to be done in the established areas of physics. I think the same applies to biology.

Science is shifting rapidly; the scientific community appears to not always be following the current.

Models need not be proven wrong to be replaced; better models need only to be found.

 

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time. It is easy to acknowledge the fatality of it all, but when it comes to having at least a bit of regognition of our control over our lifetime destiny, then the talk is less forthcoming.

As far as I can remember this has never been the case in scientific circles. I remember back in high school a bit about nurture vs nature discussions, but first semester university pretty much demolished that idea. Again, popular science vs actual science.

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I stongly disagree that Dawkins did not have a significant impact on the scientific community as a whole. It reinforced already prevalent assumptions.

And you are basing it on what? As far as I can tell, Dawkins mostly wrote popular science books and I have seen him mostly cited in essay-like articles, but not really in actual original works, for example. I suspect there was more impact in areas where biology and sociology or philosophy shortly overlapped (such as the short-ish attempt at establishing sociobiology). But the impact on mainstream biology was rather muted. At best it gave us some ways to communicate certain concepts to the public. But again, I think it is the difference between a laypersons view and what is actual happening among science circles. 

[Luc Turpin]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As far as I can remember this has never been the case in scientific circles. I remember back in high school a bit about nurture vs nature discussions, but first semester university pretty much demolished that idea. Again, popular science vs actual science.

And you are basing it on what? As far as I can tell, Dawkins mostly wrote popular science books and I have seen him mostly cited in essay-like articles, but not really in actual original works, for example. I suspect there was more impact in areas where biology and sociology or philosophy shortly overlapped (such as the short-ish attempt at establishing sociobiology). But the impact on mainstream biology was rather muted. At best it gave us some ways to communicate certain concepts to the public. But again, I think it is the difference between a laypersons view and what is actual happening among science circles. 

In the scientific literature that I read, there is a strong nature undertone. So, not only in popular science.

The Dawkins impact on mainstream biology could have been rather muted, but his impact on the science community as whole was significant.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time.

I think you are mistaking pop-science journalism with science.

 

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science is shifting rapidly; the scientific community appears to not always be following the current.

Models need not be proven wrong to be replaced; better models need only to be found.

I can’t reconcile either of these statements 

Science is performed by the scientific community. Any shifting is from them. Not all surprising results pan out, so it’s not prudent to chase after them until they are confirmed, and one result might not be nearly enough to formulate a new model.

If a model is not wrong - it accurately predicts/matches results - then what constitutes a better model? There has to be some discrepancy between model and experiment for there to be improvement in the model. i.e. there has to be something that it gets wrong.

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The Dawkins impact on mainstream biology could have been rather muted, but his impact on the science community as whole was significant.

That is certainly not the experience I have. And I am not sure what in your mind the difference between mainstream biology and the science community is in this context. Do you mean non-biologists? That might be true. But then it wouldn't be their field now, would it.

37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

In the scientific literature that I read, there is a strong nature undertone.

This is so generic that is says nothing. Rather obviously if you read a molecular genetics paper on cells, it is rather obvious you will see little in terms of larger physiological context of the organism. The field of biological sciences is vast- and asserting some type of specific undertone without working in an area is very difficult.

 

Edit: crossposted, removed repetition.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I think you are mistaking pop-science journalism with science.

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

i can’t reconcile either of these statements 

Science as in evidence versus the scientific community as in scientists interpreting the meaning of the evidence

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If a model is not wrong - it accurately predicts/matches results - then what constitutes a better model? There has to be some discrepancy between model and experiment for there to be improvement in the model. i.e. there has to be something that it gets wrong.

Classical physics was replaced by quantum physics not because it was wrong, but because it was insufficient at describing the subatomic world. I am not the one saying that evolutionary biology needs to change, Denis Noble is. As for the mind-brain model, I am not saying that the current model is wrong, but incomplete. One should stop saying that I want to overthrow all of science. This is not the case. But I am also saying that a mental predisposition to a certain worldview is skewing up the way we interpret evidence.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Do you mean non-biologists? That might be true. But then it wouldn't be their field now, would it.

I would be very surprised  that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

This is so generic that is says nothing. Rather obviously if you read a molecular genetics paper on cells, it is rather obvious you will see little in terms of larger physiological context of the organism. The field of biological sciences is vast- and asserting some type of specific undertone without working in an area is very difficult.

 So if the conversation that we are having would not have occurred, would you be acknowledging that the larger context is missing or that you would be aware of the undertone that prevails?  We are not as objective as we would like to think we are and the world surrounding us might not even be as objective as we think it is. The only thing that I am trying to say here is that we all forget out of habit that we carry a lot of baggage with us when we do and interpret science. Affirming that science is pure, is fooling ourselves.

 

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

would be very surprised  that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this

This statement is so broad so that it is basically meaningless. But the worst part is that it fundamentally misunderstands what science attempts to do. Because bias is an important concern, natural sciences tries to set up systems that is data-driven and testable. This process ideally removes the individual from the equation as anyone else can in theory replicate experiments and test the models accordingly. It matters little if someone writes a book that is immensely popular, or not. We do not blindly follow arguments, as you seem to do. Or follow superficial tendencies we believe to perceive. If we think something is off with a model, we design experiments that might violate the model and look at the outcome. 

 

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science.

Pop sci is a simplification and often gets things wrong as a consequence. Especially as the writers frequently lack the deeper understanding to recognize important nuances. If you get your vibe from those, you clearly are looking at a tiny, simplified version of science and extrapolate that massively.

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 So if the conversation that we are having would not have occurred, would you be acknowledging that the larger context is missing or that you would be aware of the undertone that prevails?

I think you do not realize the amount of specialization that occurs in individual studies. If you wanted to squeeze in the whole complexity of biology in every study, each paper would be at minimum a few thousand pages. That does not make any practical sense. There is no undertone, but rather each study sets up a specific context in which it explores aspects. If you do not realize that your overall assessment of science is clearly flawed.

[Luc Turpin]

29 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I would be very surprised  that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this

not a good argument on my part.

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This statement is so broad so that it is basically meaningless. But the worst part is that it fundamentally misunderstands what science attempts to do. Because bias is an important concern, natural sciences tries to set up systems that is data-driven and testable. This process ideally removes the individual from the equation as anyone else can in theory replicate experiments and test the models accordingly. It matters little if someone writes a book that is immensely popular, or not. We do not blindly follow arguments, as you seem to do. Or follow superficial tendencies we believe to perceive. If we think something is off with a model, we design experiments that might violate the model and look at the outcome. 

 

Pop sci is a simplification and often gets things wrong as a consequence. Especially as the writers frequently lack the deeper understanding to recognize important nuances. If you get your vibe from those, you clearly are looking at a tiny, simplified version of science and extrapolate that massively.

I think you do not realize the amount of specialization that occurs in individual studies. If you wanted to squeeze in the whole complexity of biology in every study, each paper would be at minimum a few thousand pages. That does not make any practical sense. There is no undertone, but rather each study sets up a specific context in which it explores aspects. If you do not realize that your overall assessment of science is clearly flawed.

Then you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias in science.

[Phi for All]

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Classical physics was replaced by quantum physics not because it was wrong, but because it was insufficient at describing the subatomic world.

Classical physics was NOT replaced by anything, that's not the way to think about it. As you say, it's not wrong, it still works where it's applicable (which isn't the subatomic world). 

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science.

It's not though. It's often exaggerated or implies things the actual scientists never implied. It's inherently biased regarding a methodology that strives to remove bias. Popular science articles are meant to interest the reader who isn't jazzed enough by the nuts and bolts of science. 

53 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We are not as objective as we would like to think we are and the world surrounding us might not even be as objective as we think it is. The only thing that I am trying to say here is that we all forget out of habit that we carry a lot of baggage with us when we do and interpret science. Affirming that science is pure, is fooling ourselves.

What YOU are forgetting is we have methodology that includes peer discussion and review designed to strip away that baggage and explain a phenomenon objectively. YOU might forget out of habit, YOU might still carry baggage when you interpret new knowledge, but the scientific community does NOT. There are too many of them and the methods they use are strong.

I think you're projecting your own ignorance onto the situation, which is easy to do when you you're not involved on a daily basis. I'm not a working scientist myself, but many members here are, and they're fantastic resources for filling in the gaps I have in my knowledge.

Also, nobody is "affirming that science is pure". You made that up.

 

[Luc Turpin]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Classical physics was NOT replaced by anything, that's not the way to think about it. As you say, it's not wrong, it still works where it's applicable (which isn't the subatomic world). 

It's not though. It's often exaggerated or implies things the actual scientists never implied. It's inherently biased regarding a methodology that strives to remove bias. Popular science articles are meant to interest the reader who isn't jazzed enough by the nuts and bolts of science. 

What YOU are forgetting is we have methodology that includes peer discussion and review designed to strip away that baggage and explain a phenomenon objectively. YOU might forget out of habit, YOU might still carry baggage when you interpret new knowledge, but the scientific community does NOT. There are too many of them and the methods they use are strong.

I think you're projecting your own ignorance onto the situation, which is easy to do when you you're not involved on a daily basis. I'm not a working scientist myself, but many members here are, and they're fantastic resources for filling in the gaps I have in my knowledge.

Also, nobody is "affirming that science is pure". You made that up.

 

I reiterate, you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias nor worldview involved in science. Continue on.

[Phi for All]

35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias in science.

This is another strawman argument, masquerading as a tantrum. Nobody said you were entirely wrong. Nobody said there is no bias in science. It's just not the major problem you made it seem to be, and we're adapting to new worldviews just fine, thanks.

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's not though. It's often exaggerated or implies things the actual scientists never implied. It's inherently biased regarding a methodology that strives to remove bias.

And when it’s a scientist it’s often slanted toward the views of individuals who make themselves available, but are commenting on topics outside their area of expertise, like Michio Kaku. 

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Popular science articles are meant to interest the reader who isn't jazzed enough by the nuts and bolts of science. 

Or just don’t have the background to understand the nuance that’s involved. (which the author might lack. see e.g. any quantum teleportation piece that mentions Star Trek)

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up.

By and large pop-sci is journalists and not scientists, and the two groups don’t always get along.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Science as in evidence versus the scientific community as in scientists interpreting the meaning of the evidence

Who else would interpret the meaning of the evidence?

When there’s some new result, we don’t necessarily know what it means. It takes time to figure that out. Until there’s a consensus it’s irresponsible to claim that we know what the evidence means. What you can do is make your argument, but the final decision has to wait for more evidence.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Classical physics was replaced by quantum physics not because it was wrong, but because it was insufficient at describing the subatomic world.

IOW its description of subatomic behavior was wrong. What are current models getting wrong?

 

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I reiterate, you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias nor worldview involved in science. Continue on.

"There is no cannibalism in the British navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount." -- Graham Chapman

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

And when it’s a scientist it’s often slanted toward the views of individuals who make themselves available, but are commenting on topics outside their area of expertise, like Michio Kaku. 

It's amazing that studying physics can make one an expert in biology and climate science too! Mainly, I dislike the casual way he makes claims, like in 100 years we'll be able to harness all the energy output of the planet. Real scientists don't need to be vividly misleading.

 

[Luc Turpin]

57 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"There is no cannibalism in the British navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount." -- Graham Chapman

That is exactly what I was implying. It felt as if I was going nowhere with the discussion. No stawman argument nor temper tantum needed.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And when it’s a scientist it’s often slanted toward the views of individuals who make themselves available, but are commenting on topics outside their area of expertise, like Michio Kaku. 

Or just don’t have the background to understand the nuance that’s involved. (which the author might lack. see e.g. any quantum teleportation piece that mentions Star Trek)

By and large pop-sci is journalists and not scientists, and the two groups don’t always get along.

Pop-science in not Michio Kaku, nor Star treck, but science studies that are made available for public viewing.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

When there’s some new result, we don’t necessarily know what it means. It takes time to figure that out. Until there’s a consensus it’s irresponsible to claim that we know what the evidence means. What you can do is make your argument, but the final decision has to wait for more evidence.

That sounds reasonable. 

Hope that all new results are treated in the same way.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

IOW its description of subatomic behavior was wrong. What are current models getting wrong?

This is not the interpretation of others. If I am reading the second sentence correctly, I am not implying anything; surely not that current subatomic models are getting it wrong.

 

General - I do not even come close to Swansont, Phi for all or CharonY when it comes to the minutia of science. I am a generalist overlooking up high the entire field of science and just maybe-maybe seeing things from my vantage point that others might miss. No grand theory of everything, but tidbits that may make a difference. One can take some of it and consider it or just ignore it. But, I insist in repeating that bias is more of a problem than what is implied. Bias is pernicious; it works at the sub-conscious level.