Big picture ok but details are not

Most of science progresses by getting small things and experiments right, and putting them together to form a big theory. However, this is not always the case.

Reading the 'Domestication of Animals' by Darwin (a detailed version of 'The Origin') it is obvious to me that Darwin has over-observed the details-he is drawing lots of small conclusions in this work without much data. Many of these are false. However, the grand theory of evolution, is okay.

What I am saying is that Darwin's general observation of the origin of species (The theory of Evolution) is correct-but the details he is apparently using to back up the claims are not necessary, and are often not even right. It is as if you can see the Forest well, but when you see the Trees and try to understand the Forest better , you get lost and draw all kinds of wrong conclusions about the trees.

This fits in (accidentally) well with the title of my blog "False Conclusions". I call this blog "False Conclusions" because most of the cause-effect relationships we give are false, but we keep giving them anyway, and coming up with new ones. Human progress maybe depends on giving more plausible explanations as time ( measured in centuries) passes, even if they are false or proven false later.

Astrology is a good explanation of what happens around to you until Astronomy comes about to tell you that the stars are bodies just like the Earth and are not controlling your life. Indeed, Superstition is pre-science-it is trying to explain what happens around us but gets it all wrong in assuming the existence of Gods and spirits. This was pointed out by Smith in his Lectures-introduction to Astronomy.