History Main / ScienceIsWrong

28th Oct '17 11:14:18 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** In the sourcebook ''Second Sight'', science is presented not only as being wrong about PsychicPowers, but actively ''damaging'' to their activation - scientific scrutiny makes them harder to use. Which is, of course, why no use of psychic ability ever passed the Randi Challenge (aside from the fact that everyone who entered was a charlatan; actual psychics were too busy conning casinos or playing the stock market). To be even more specific, it's not science itself but ''skepticism'' which weakens psychic powers, it just unhappily coincides that scientists are the best equipped and inclined to be skeptical. As presented, psychic powers are strengthened in the presence of true believers, but a group of skeptics (or just one who has bought the Merit "Doubting Thomas") will alter probability to the point where the likelihood of success becomes equal to the likelihood of achieving a CriticalFailure.

to:

** In the sourcebook ''Second Sight'', science is presented not only as being wrong about PsychicPowers, but actively ''damaging'' to their activation - scientific scrutiny makes them harder to use. Which is, of course, why no use of psychic ability ever passed the Randi Challenge (aside from the fact that everyone who entered was a charlatan; actual psychics were too busy conning casinos or playing the stock market). To be even more specific, it's not science itself but ''skepticism'' which weakens psychic powers, it just unhappily coincides that scientists are the best equipped and inclined to be skeptical. As presented, psychic powers are strengthened in the presence of true believers, but a group of skeptics (or just one who has bought the Merit "Doubting Thomas") will alter probability to the point where the likelihood of success becomes equal to the likelihood of achieving a CriticalFailure. This is an explanation many self-described psychics have used for why they can't do things while skeptics are watching too. The skeptics feel this is more likely just an excuse however.



* One common misunderstanding about what science is regards "procedural naturalism", a concept that actually goes back to the 12th century. The basic idea is that one must assume natural causes and only use natural causes in describing phenomena. There are two sides to this. First is that something like Intelligent Design is not, by definition, scientific. This is not to say that assuming intelligent design cannot lead to practical applications with repeatable results and such, but it doesn't follow the paradigm. To the extent that making non-natural assumptions leads to falsifiable predictions that are confirmed, science is wrong (or at least, incomplete). The second part is taking procedural naturalism (as an assumption) and making the leap to an assertion that only natural causes can describe phenomena. This is known as ontological or philosophical naturalism and is a metaphysical proposition. As such, it cannot be "proven" right or wrong, at least not by what is itself considered to be science. Whether it's Hume's Problem with Induction or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, there is no way to be sure. Making the assertion is itself not scientific. This trope includes the opposite assertion which - not surprisingly - is just as unscientific, but alleged to be moreso because of this confusion.
* Scientific approaches to questions of morality can be criticized as not scientific because abstract concepts of right, wrong, good, evil and the like have no physical characteristics - in and of themselves - from which empirical observations can be made. Hume's Law laid out the Is-Ought Problem: normative prescriptions can not be deduced from empirical observation and description. To describe good or evil, one must define it, but that is the whole point: you must choose axioms for what is good or evil before you can test them. Noting the above entry, one can assume that morals are a product of evolutionary psychobiology but that is still just an assumption. It may even provide descriptive and predictive power but there is no way to show that someone "should" do something in some circumstance without falling back on your original assumption. You can't tell if it is correct, but it is bad science. This trope can assert that the things that are most important to human beings - love, beauty, justice - cannot be measured and therefore cannot be approached scientifically. While scientists can study one's brain's composition and activity to determine what triggers certain emotions and the effects of experiencing what one likes / dislikes, claiming that personal preferences are objectively "right or wrong" is a very flawed statement.

to:

* One common misunderstanding about what science is regards "procedural "methodological naturalism", a concept that actually goes back to the 12th century. The basic idea is that one must assume natural causes and only use natural causes in describing phenomena. There are two sides to this. First is that something like Intelligent Design is not, by definition, scientific. This is not to say that assuming intelligent design cannot lead to practical applications with repeatable results and such, but it doesn't follow the paradigm. To the extent that making non-natural assumptions leads to falsifiable predictions that are confirmed, science is wrong (or at least, incomplete). The second part is taking procedural methodological naturalism (as an assumption) and making the leap to an assertion that only natural causes can describe phenomena. This is known as ontological or philosophical naturalism and is a metaphysical proposition. As such, it cannot be "proven" right or wrong, at least not by what is itself considered to be science. Whether it's Hume's Problem with Induction or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, there is no way to be sure. Making the assertion is itself not scientific. This trope includes the opposite assertion which - not surprisingly - is just as unscientific, but alleged to be moreso because of this confusion.
* Scientific approaches to questions of morality can be criticized as not scientific because abstract concepts of right, wrong, good, evil and the like have no physical characteristics - in and of themselves - from which empirical observations can be made. Hume's Law laid out the Is-Ought Problem: normative prescriptions can not be deduced from empirical observation and description. To describe good or evil, one must define it, but that is the whole point: you must choose axioms for what is good or evil before you can test them. Noting the above entry, one can assume that morals are a product of evolutionary psychobiology but that is still just an assumption. It may even provide descriptive and predictive power but there is no way to show that someone "should" do something in some circumstance without falling back on your original assumption. You can't tell if it is correct, but it is bad science. This trope can assert that the things that are most important to human beings - love, beauty, justice - cannot be measured and therefore cannot be approached scientifically. While scientists can study one's brain's composition and activity to determine what triggers certain emotions and the effects of experiencing what one likes / dislikes, claiming that personal preferences are objectively scientifically "right or wrong" is a very flawed statement.statement.
11th Jul '17 5:51:36 PM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Krzysztof Kieślowski's ''Decalogue I'': professor father and genius son think everything can be understood in mathematics and solved through their computer. The computer is able to calculate what the mother is doing, but comes up blank when the son asks what she is dreaming of (a religious aunt is able to provide the answer: she is dreaming of her son of course). The son goes skating on a frozen lake, because the computer says the ice will hold three times his weight. The ice breaks and the son is frozen to death.

to:

* Krzysztof Kieślowski's Creator/KrzysztofKieslowski's ''Decalogue I'': professor father and genius son think everything can be understood in mathematics and solved through their computer. The computer is able to calculate what the mother is doing, but comes up blank when the son asks what she is dreaming of (a religious aunt is able to provide the answer: she is dreaming of her son of course). The son goes skating on a frozen lake, because the computer says the ice will hold three times his weight. The ice breaks and the son is frozen to death.
6th Jul '17 8:27:45 PM Ferot_Dreadnaught
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This can also contradict one of the most prevalent sub-tropes of ScienceIsBad, namely, NewTechnologyIsEvil. After all, evil technology presumably ''works'', which means that at least ''that'' science wasn't (empirically) wrong. One possible way to have both tropes is {{Aesoptinium}}; ''because'' science is wrong, the technology became evil in a way the scientists didn't intend, though we can still say Science Is Bad because the scientists [[GenreSavvy should have known better]] than to make something with PotentialApplications.

to:

This can also contradict one of the most prevalent sub-tropes of ScienceIsBad, namely, NewTechnologyIsEvil. After all, evil technology presumably ''works'', which means that at least ''that'' science wasn't (empirically) wrong. One possible way to have both tropes is {{Aesoptinium}}; ''because'' science is wrong, the technology became evil in a way the scientists didn't intend, though we can still say Science Is Bad because the scientists [[GenreSavvy should have known better]] better than to make something with PotentialApplications.
8th Apr '17 10:19:23 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://arassara.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/quino-fisica.jpg This strip]] by ''ComicStrip/{{Quino}}'' illustrates {{God}}'s opinion on the Laws of Physics.

to:

* [[http://arassara.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/quino-fisica.jpg This strip]] by ''ComicStrip/{{Quino}}'' ''Creator/{{Quino}}'' illustrates {{God}}'s opinion on the Laws of Physics.
31st Dec '16 1:06:31 AM LeithSol
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Early in the first book has Harry mentioning that Science as "the great religion of the 20th Century" has been treated as the source of all the answers and those answers don't include monsters or magic, which means people are left without a clue when they encounter the supernatural. One character (Butters) confrontation with this is something of a subplot in ''Dead Beat''.

to:

** Early in the first book has Harry mentioning that Science as "the great religion of the 20th Century" has been treated as the source of all the answers and those answers don't include monsters or magic, which means people are left without a clue when they encounter the supernatural. One character (Butters) [[spoiler:Butters]] confrontation with this is something of a subplot in ''Dead Beat''.
5th Dec '16 11:08:46 PM Emreld3000
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Although deeper digging into the game provides a more moderate moral, in that "just" because there is a scientific explanation for something does not mean it is not divine, such as saying that knowing how a rainbow is created doesn't make it any less beautiful.
22nd Nov '16 6:28:50 AM Sar-Chasm
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Played straight with the German Sterligov, russian millionare. He takes it UpToEleven, claiming that science is not only ''wrong'' but downright [[TechnologyIsEvil Evil]], and therefore should be purged from the Earth [[KnightTemplar along with all the scientists and teachers]]. He is promptly follows his own advices and moved with the family to house in the middle of nowhere, to live in his ideal lifestyle without all those damned technology, education and medical care. He is still preach his views. [[{{Hypocrite}} Through the Internet]].

to:

* Played straight with the German Sterligov, russian millionare. He takes it UpToEleven, claiming that science is not only ''wrong'' but downright [[TechnologyIsEvil Evil]], and therefore should be purged from the Earth [[KnightTemplar along with all the scientists and teachers]]. He is promptly follows his own advices advice and moved with the his family to a house in the middle of nowhere, to live in his ideal lifestyle without all those that damned technology, education and medical care. He is still preach preaches his views. [[{{Hypocrite}} Through the Internet]].
6th Aug '16 3:19:57 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Subtly played with in ''ComicBook/TheBooksOfMagic'', wherein it is explained that the magical explanation for a supernatural event is always correct... but so is the scientific explanation, depending on who is observing the supernatural. People who truly do not believe in magic will never, ever encounter it in the DCUniverse because of this effect.

to:

* Subtly played with in ''ComicBook/TheBooksOfMagic'', wherein it is explained that the magical explanation for a supernatural event is always correct... but so is the scientific explanation, depending on who is observing the supernatural. People who truly do not believe in magic will never, ever encounter it in the DCUniverse Franchise/DCUniverse because of this effect.
14th May '16 8:04:40 AM lavendermintrose
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Literature/GoodOmens'' fits this pretty nicely, since within the book the universe really is about 6000 years old (having been created in 4004 BC), Literature/TheBible is pretty literally correct, etc. Scientists aren't exactly portrayed as ''bad,'' just kind of pointless. ("The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the palaeontologists haven't seen yet.") Let's not forget that by the end [[spoiler: it's been proven that even the immortal creatures who have existed more or less since the dawn of time (the angels and demons) don't really have any idea what's going on either; they're just better at pretending they do.]] As the book puts it,

to:

* ''Literature/GoodOmens'' fits this pretty nicely, nicely (albeit in parody), since within the book the universe really is about 6000 years old (having been created in 4004 BC), Literature/TheBible is pretty literally correct, etc. Scientists aren't exactly portrayed as ''bad,'' just kind of pointless. ("The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the palaeontologists haven't seen yet.") Let's not forget that by the end [[spoiler: it's been proven that even the immortal creatures who have existed more or less since the dawn of time (the angels and demons) don't really have any idea what's going on either; they're just better at pretending they do.]] As the book puts it,
4th Apr '16 5:39:14 PM WillKeaton
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* There is a well-regarded journal article titled [[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False]], which posits that entire fields of contemporary science may be "null fields," i.e. completely bogus. Quite possibly including, ironically, [[http://biostats.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/ that very article.]]

to:

* There is a well-regarded journal article titled [[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False]], False,]] which posits that entire fields of contemporary science may be "null fields," i.e. completely bogus. Quite possibly including, ironically, [[http://biostats.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135/ that very article.]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 192. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ScienceIsWrong