One can argue Quantum Mechanics is a refinement of Newtonian physics, but it was not.
I agree. But that does not mean classical mechanics is wrong.
Yes it was plain wrong. The lack of limiting factors implies there is none.
For example:
r2 =
r*
r,
Whatever
r you choose, that is going to work.
On the other hand, Newton's Laws of Gravity:
F=
G(
M1*
M2) /
r2Say
r=2
h (where
h of course is Planck length), you are sure to get rediculous answers. Why would I not expect the right answer? Did Newton specify it can't go down to Planck length? (Difficult for Newton to do as Planck was born many years after Newton was dead.)
If I say I will pay you double time if you work holidays. You did that for 10 consecutive holidays 8 hours each day and expected a big pay check... then I tell you, oh, you get double pay only for up to 20 hours, would you consider that $ for 20 hours the wrong amount or the right amount? But I was telling you the right formula: double pay for every hours you work on holidays. I just didn't tell you the limiting factor...
Newtonian Mechanics (prior to present day reinterpretation/patch) was wrong because it implicitly assumed that it applies in all known conditions. That assumption was wrong. Newtonian solutions were solutions that only works under some unknown conditions. You don't know if you are under that certain condition that works, or not. So your answer could be right, or not.
There should be no reluctance in admitting advanced science may be wrong.
This is a case where using precise language is important. What do you mean by "science" ?
To use your example, the theory that atoms were the smallest particle was wrong as theories often are. It was science that proved this.
Yes, sometimes theories, become, after many, many unsuccessfull attempts to disprove them (aka science), established dogma. Occassionally dogma is overturned by new information (often because of advancements in technology). But that is a relatively rare occurrence and certainly not as common as some here assert.
It is true that precise language is important. In this context, I use the word "science" as in studying of how nature works.
Precision can only apply to present day and present context.
(Present Context) What an astronomer called
metal I would not. What a dietary scientist called
Calarie I would not. Neither of them use that two terms the same way Physicist would.
(Present day) What is a
second as defined today is rather different than how a
second was defined when Newton was around.
All our laws, theory, and measurements are based on what we can perceive, what we can measure, and what we know at the time. The same Science that shown atom being indivisible was wrong is the same Science that shown Newton was wrong.
Scientist themselves in general are not reluctant to admit science is wrong. Often individual scientist may found it difficult for them to abandon certain views/theories that they invested so much of their live in. I think the general public found it more difficult to accept certain long-lasting "trues" are actually not so true.
Soon enough, we may found General Theory of Relativity wrong - as we know more about dark matter, perhaps General Relativity applies only if dark matter is "fill in the blank" and when "fill in the blank" and when photon decade is "fill in the blank".
New stuff pops up often enough that even best of scientist may not be able to keep on top of every new development. I often wonder, had Einstein been better with quantum mechanics, would he had been more successful in developing his unified field theory. He certainly did not know anything about dark energy. So his theory could be found wrong some day and that would not take anything away from his achievements.