• Show Spoilers
• Night Vision

# History Main / ScienceIsWrong

18th Jan '18 1:33:06 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message

* ''Series/{{QI}}'': Joked about when Creator/DavidMitchell goes on a rant upon being informed that the ''Principia Mathematica'', published in 1910, takes around 500 pages to prove that "1 + 1 = 2".

to:

* ''Series/{{QI}}'': Joked about when Creator/DavidMitchell Creator/{{David Mitchell|Actor}} goes on a rant upon being informed that the ''Principia Mathematica'', published in 1910, takes around 500 pages to prove that "1 + 1 = 2".
9th Jan '18 9:06:58 AM DarkHunter
Is there an issue? Send a Message

* ''Series/{{QI}}'': Joked about when Creator/DavidMitchell goes on a rant upon being informed that the ''Principia Mathematica'', published in 1910, takes around 500 pages to prove that "1 + 1 = 2".
-->'''Mitchell''': That's a bit late for the 20th century, I say. You have a lot riding on 1 + 1 = 2. Quite a lot of building going on, an international economy... what happens if you find out 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2? What do we do? Just burn everything! God knows anything can fall on your head. Money? You might as well eat it. Just forget civilisation.
23rd Dec '17 12:04:17 PM CurledUpWithDakka
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 [[spoiler: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 [[spoiler:Butters]] confrontation with this is something of a subplot in ''Dead Beat''.''Literature/DeadBeat''.
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