History Main / ScienceIsWrong

* Mixed with ScienceIsBad and played painfully straight in [[JackChick Chick Tracts]]. Not just limited to EvilutionaryBiologist, but even [[GravityIsOnlyATheory the theory of gravity]] is wrong, since the true reason for planetary orbits is obviously "Because Jesus is so awesome."

** They are not alone. Psychiatry has many more critics, some of them legitimate. Look [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment here ]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry here]]

* Ironically, while {{Exalted}} exemplifies the trope in the quote listed above (which appears on the back cover of both the first and second edition core rulebooks), the setting itself generally subverts it through heavy use of MagiTek and FunctionalMagic. It's not that the setting is unscientific, it's just that it takes place in a world where the RuleOfCool is ''encoded into the laws of physics.'' Most of the setting's most powerful artificers, spellcasters, and thaumaturges are described as having approached their trades with a decidedly scientific mindset.

** I don't think this means that science is ''wrong'', just that it is incomplete by itself, or even just that ''existing'' science is incomplete. There's a difference between "ScienceIsWrong" and "Science is incomplete".

** I'm not sure that this means that science is ''wrong'', just that it is incomplete by itself, or even just that ''existing'' science is incomplete. There's a difference between "ScienceIsWrong" and "Science is incomplete".

** I'm not sure that this means that science is ''wrong'', just that it is incomplete by itself, or even just that ''existing'' science is incomplete. There's a difference between ScienceIsWrong and "Science is incomplete".

** I'm not sure that this means that science is ''wrong'', just that it is incomplete by itself, or even just that ''existing'' science is incomplete.

* The jury is still out on whether Paul Feyerabend is an example of this trope. On one hand, he heavily criticizes the "scientific method", claiming that scientists give less attention to results that challenge their notions (and even siding with creationists for some time). However, in ''The Trouble With Physics'', Lee Smolin argues that Feyerabend's disdain actually stems from [[StealthMentor a devoted preoccupation with scientific inquiry]].

In this trope, science is simply wrong: it lacks objectivity and does not describe anything "real". There are a number of general forms in which the error of science is considered:

* SeventhSea averts this: Until recently, the [[CrystalDragonJesus church]] was the biggest sponsor of scientific studies, believing that by understanding their deity's creation, they'd become closer to it. Then, the head of the church died and with no successor in sight, the [[SpanishInquisition inquisition]] [[KnightTemplar ran amok]], declaring the end of the world nigh and pressuring universities to close so that man could focus on preparing their souls for the next world instead of wasting time trying to understand the present one...

* Aversion (and possibly deconstruction): ''Distress'' by Greg Egan has characters attempting all three originally mentioned attacks on science, and corresponding defenses of science. His repudiation of the notion of science "only being valid for white men in Europe" is given in a speech by a black South African physicist, who points out that what she and all her colleagues have discovered applies equally to every cubic Planck in the observable universe and that logic doesn't care what gonads you have.

** But it's also worth noting SamuelJohnson's response to Berkeley's theory that reality only exists in the mind: he said "I refute it thus" and then kicked a rock with his foot. Whatever the true nature of science and reality, assuming it's real seems to be the only way of actually getting through life.

** A ready retort, courtesy of RichardDawkins: "Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite"
*** [[CompletelyMissingThePoint How would the subject get there?]]

[[AC: Genres]]
* Romanticism
** BZZZ! I'm sorry, please go back and review. The Romantic poets of the early 1800s saw science as their counterpart; they described the mysteries of nature and the human condition, while scientists revealed the beauty of the natural world. To quote Keats (THE Romantic, in many ways) "Then felt I like some watcher of the skies/When a new planet swims into his ken." This directly referenced the discovery of a certain moon of Saturn. These people may have disliked [[LuddWasRight industrialization]] for damaging the world, but they were in love with the world, in all its aspects. MeasuringTheMarigolds averted hard, from the other side, thankyouverymuch.
* Philosophical ''Idealism'', and its Eastern analogue, the Consciousness-Only schools of [[UsefulNotes/{{Buddhism}} Buddhism]]. These posit the phenomenal world as being something that takes place entirely within consciousness. Reality therefore has no intrinsic existence outside of our conscious experiences.
** A famous Zen parable that describes this has two disciples arguing about a flag waving in the wind. The first disciple claims that the wind is blowing the flag, the second disciple argues that it is the flag which drives the wind. The master overhears this and corrects them both, saying "It is the mind that moves."
** I don't see how this means that ''science'' is wrong, per se. Last I heard, science is just about making accurate, falsifiable predictions, and I don't see that Idealism threatens that. If we're only making accurate, falsifiable predictions about our own consciousness, what (scientific) difference does it really make?
*** Well said. Although science is based in Materialism (also called Monism and Physicalism) if Idealism is right, how would you know? Verified observations could still be made, but the nature of reality would be different. Of course, the folks who think change in consciousness would alter reality is where it gets tricky...
*** It depends on weather you follow a scientific realism view or Instrumentalism. In realism a theory is true if it explain reality, but in the other a theory is true if it makes accurate predictions.

* ''GoodOmens'' fits this pretty nicely, since within the book the universe really is about 6000 years old (having been created in 4004 BC), 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 [[SuperDickery a joke the palaeontologists haven't seen yet]].")

** Which makes no sense, really. This Troper would think that scientists, when faced with the evidence, would alter their theories to better fit the evidence. Something called the 'Scientific Method' or some such nonsense. Seriously though, this Troper finds that example rather sketchy.
** That's because that wasn't what the character was talking about. He was expressing pity for the scientists when they discover the tunnels that people came out of (as per Hopi mythology) in clear defiance of any kind of sense. This is a GodsNeedPrayerBadly setting where AllMythsAreTrue, remember. Science is kinda screwed. A type four, on the above chart. And remember this is a supernatural entity saying this, while at the same time technological CargoCult thinking is edging his ilk out. Could be Mr. Ibis is just a tad tetchy about the march of progress.

*** I prefer the version where he kicks him in the nuts.

** [[SarcasmMode Perish the thought that a scientist would ever manipulate facts to prove his or her pet theory, eh?]]

** I don't see how this means that ''science'' is wrong, per se. Last I heard, science is just about making accurate, falsifiable predictions, and I don't see that Idealism threatens that. If we're only making accuarate, falsifiable predictions about our own consciousness, what (scientific) difference does it really make?

*** It depends on weather you follow a scintific realism view or Instrumentalism. In realism a theory is true if it explain reality, but in the other a theory is true if it makes accurate predictions.

** That's because that wasn't what the character was talking about. He was expressing pity for the scientists when they discover the tunnels that people came out of (as per Hopi mythology) in clear defiance of any kind of sense. This is a GodNeedsprayer setting where AllMythsAreTrue, remember. Science is kinda screwed. A type four, on the above chart. And remember this is a supernatural entity saying this, while at the same time technological CargoCult thinking is edging his ilk out. Could be Mr. Ibis is just a tad tetchy about the march of progress.

* ScottAdams loves this trope in his written work. See his statements on the paranormal and evolution.

** Althought when you think about it, Hamlet responds to seeing his father's alleged ghost logically and scientifically. He suspects that the "apparition" may be a trick. To test it, he devises the whole "Play within a Play" scheme. Claudius's reaction confirms is evidence that the ghost was real.

* The jury is still out on whether Paul Feyerabend is an example of this trope. On one hand, he heavily criticizes the "scientific method", claiming that scientists give less attention to results that challenge their notions (and even siding with creationists for some time). However, in ''The Trouble With Physics'', Lee Smolin argues that Feyerabend's disdain actually stems from [[StealthMentor a devouted preoccupation with scientific inquiry]].

[[AC: {{VideoGames}}]]
* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gTORMw2gY This gag from]] ''SamAndMax''.

** BZZZ! I'm sorry, please go back and review. The Romantic poets of the early 1800s saw science as their counterpart; they described the mysteries of nature and the human condition, while scientists revealed the beauty of the natural world. To quote Keats (THE Romantic, in many ways) "Then felt I like some watcher of the skies/When a new planet swims into his ken." This directly referenced the discovery of a certain moon of Saturn. These people may have disliked [[industrialization LuddWasRight]] for damaging the world, but they were in love with the world, in all its aspects. MeasuringTheMarigolds averted hard, from the other side, thankyouverymuch.

** In ''[[GeniusTheTransgression Genius: The Transgression]]'', Wonders are inherently non-repeatable phenomena, which causes a problem for anyone trying to scientifically test then verify with additional tests. This might be because mad science is inherently unexplainable but it could just as easily be because [[MadScientist Mad Scientists]] are explicitly not any good at proper science. On the other hand, there is no discussion about whether ''sane'' scientists are wrong or not.

* 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.

** A debatable example is the work of HPLovecraft. Among other things, his state as a romanticist is not absolutely agreed-upon and his own complexity might see obstructive to the application of this trope.
*** In his stories, science wasn't wrong at all: It was ''merely'' incomplete, and should most definitely [[ThingsManWasNotMeantToKnow stay that way]]. Something ''[[EldritchAbomination else]]'' might notice.