Why has science failed so miserably?

[Skeptisch]

The so-called Laws of Physics are rules that have changed and will continue to be improved upon.

Could you give us some examples where and how the laws of physics are, or were, changed?

 

[Magic Man]

the fact that you exist is proof that miraculous and extremely unlikely things happen...

That's true, and yet it doesn't counter science in any way.

 

[Sunstone]

I did that and wondered, is it an accident that, in the USA, these modern anti science PR firms often seem to be connected to the religious right and/or the GOP?

They could just as easily be connected with the Left, to the extent that a true Left might be said to exist in this country. But so far as I know, none of the current attacks on science that involve PR firms are connected with the Left.

 

[painted wolf]

The far left and the far right have different areas where they are anti-science.

The right prefers to attack science in places where it seems to conflict with their "religious identity". Evolution and Stem Cells for example.

The left prefers to attack science in places where it appeals to their "anti-corporate identity". Vaccination and Genetic modification for example.

wa;do

 

[Oneatatime]

Why has science failed so miserably to convey that the laws of nature (physics) can not be suspended or altered no matter how much we wish and pray?

If faith is ever right about anything it is right by accident.

You need to be careful not to give the impression that the laws and theories of physics are unquestionable because this fuel for those who say science is dogmatic. In I book I've just started reading the author states that Newtons laws are unchallengable which evidently isn't the case as they were succesfully challenged by Einstein and those whose work followed Einsteins. Newtons laws are a good approximation for most of what we do but special relatively is needed for more accuracy.

It is fair to say that there is no compelling evidence that well supported theories and laws of physics can be overturned through appealing to the supernatural. We can demostrate this through repeated experiments that consistantly give the same answer or at the very least results which conform with expected probabilties of their occurance.

Those who believe that supernatural intervention are rarely willing to put their claims to the test and if they do and their claims are found wanting they either deny the evidence and/or retreat into the untestable.
The fault isn't with science. The fault is with people who imply causation where there is none either through personal experience of being taught such causation exists resulting in them seeing that false causation when an appropriate series of events occur e.g. they prayer for someone and they get better even though the recovery had nothing to do with prayer.

Those who believe in the supernatural often don't have much truck with 'science' or 'scientific evidence' because it doesn't support theirs views and therefore in their mind is suspect. We can't really do anything such people and neither can we intervene to stop them raising the next generation to think in this manner as well. To make matters worse democracy gives such people an influence over society and government on issues that they are unable to given an informed opinion on because they don't consider an informed opinion to be worth anything. They know what they know and thats the position they are going to maintain regardless.

 

[PolyHedral]

Could you give us some examples where and how the laws of physics are, or were, changed?

The human laws of physics were rewrote by Newton (who unified Kepler's ideas), Maxwell, Einstein, and Young (who demonstrated wave-particle duality) in roughly that order.

 

[gnostic]

The American societies are simply out of control.

It is not simply because a large part of population are ignorant with regards to science, they are also more interest making the quick bucks in any way possible. With the amount of followers (Christians) they can afford PR to spin (deceive is the better word) science as being unreliable. And if that doesn't work, they will try appealing to congressmen with donations and blackmails, or resort to lawsuit to discredit science.

It is one of the reasons why I generally hate PR, lawyers and politicians because they will do anything for money, just as any opportunistic used car salesperson would. They are nothing more than bunch of conman and swindlers.

For an outsider like me (meaning not-an-American), the American churches seemed to be as ignorant and dangerous as the powerful gun-lobbyists.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The American societies are simply out of control.

It is not simply because a large part of population are ignorant with regards to science, they are also more interest making the quick bucks in any way possible. With the amount of followers (Christians) they can afford PR to spin (deceive is the better word) science as being unreliable. And if that doesn't work, they will try appealing to congressmen with donations and blackmails, or resort to lawsuit to discredit science.

It is one of the reasons why I generally hate PR, lawyers and politicians because they will do anything for money, just as any opportunistic used car salesperson would. They are nothing more than bunch of conman and swindlers.

For an outsider like me (meaning not-an-American), the American churches seemed to be as ignorant and dangerous as the powerful gun-lobbyists.

While I agree with everything you said, I don't see why you stop where you did. In America academia and science is just as guilty as doing whatever it can to obtain grants etc... Money is supposedly drying up, and if it comes down to feeding your family, a person is going to do what they have to do, so, to me everyone is suspect in America for fabricating crap to get money.

 

[LuisDantas]

While I agree with everything you said, I don't see why you stop where you did. In America academia and science is just as guilty as doing whatever it can to obtain grants etc...

Is it? That is pretty much news to me. Unless you are talking about the military industry, that is.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, but scientists have to back their crap up. Also, labs aren't like what they are portrayed as in movies, TV and other forms of media.

The lab I worked in ran on a shoe-string budget and much of my "glamorous" research time was spent keeping aging equipment running and figuring out how to cobble together "new" equipment out of a box of random scavenged parts. One of our data collection and crunching computers was the newest of the equipment and it was an old Mac G3.

They did just get a new grant to buy a new "used" piece of equipment to slice brain and tissue samples so they don't have to spend a day traveling to borrow one from another lab. Unfortunately that type of lab equipment is specialty stuff that you can't just get at the corner store. Even used it's very expensive because they are hard to find.

ps... I feel I should also touch on the grant process... to get the small grant, the lab had to write a detailed proposal, including what research has done in the past, what it plans on doing in the future and how it will advance scientific knowledge in the process. Crap doesn't fly because you have to painstakingly justify your work from start to finish. Then you have to account for the money and where it goes. They don't just hand out money.

wa:do

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Is it? That is pretty much news to me. Unless you are talking about the military industry, that is.

Sorry it is news, but it doesn't take much to google how bad research funding is hurting right now in America.
Arts and Science have both taken a big hit in our culture the last year and even beyond a year, but it has been very bad this last year.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Yes, but scientists have to back their crap up. Also, labs aren't like what they are portrayed as in movies, TV and other forms of media.

The lab I worked in ran on a shoe-string budget and much of my "glamorous" research time was spent keeping aging equipment running and figuring out how to cobble together "new" equipment out of a box of random scavenged parts. One of our data collection and crunching computers was the newest of the equipment and it was an old Mac G3.

They did just get a new grant to buy a new "used" piece of equipment to slice brain and tissue samples so they don't have to spend a day traveling to borrow one from another lab. Unfortunately that type of lab equipment is specialty stuff that you can't just get at the corner store. Even used it's very expensive because they are hard to find.

wa:do

OH I am not saying science doesn't have to back their stuff up, I am just pointing out, that even the science community will do scrupulous things to get noticed and out in front to grab whatever money they can get, even if it is making baseless claims, that they know will never be reached, but it gets them the money.

 

[Panda]

Could you give us some examples where and how the laws of physics are, or were, changed?

Newtons second law, it was changed once we realised mass depends on velocity.

 

[painted wolf]

OH I am not saying science doesn't have to back their stuff up, I am just pointing out, that even the science community will do scrupulous things to get noticed and out in front to grab whatever money they can get, even if it is making baseless claims, that they know will never be reached, but it gets them the money.

Baseless claims are weeded out by the process. Otherwise we would be funding Homeopaths, Cold fusion and other bunk.

They don't just hand out money based on pipe dreams and and a nice smile.

wa:do

 

[Just_me_Mike]

“These cuts are significant, and will impact scientific research and educational opportunities,” Kevin Casey, Harvard’s senior director of federal and state relations, wrote in an emailed statement.
“However, strong voices have been raised in this debate about the importance of scientific research and education to our long-term economic vitality,” Casey wrote. “We are working hard to assure that more voices join in the effort in the weeks and months ahead—to preserve these programs—they are critical to our ongoing economic wellbeing as a nation.”

Source

The line in bold at the end is always a red flag to keep your eyes open. While statements like that can be true, they are more often than not fear mongering.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Baseless claims are weeded out by the process. Otherwise we would be funding Homeopaths, Cold fusion and other bunk.

They don't just hand out money based on pipe dreams and and a nice smile.

wa:do

Sure they do. Money has been given on projects that last year and years for results, hoping for future benefits, that's why it is called research. I am not saying all the time, but to say it doesn't happen is dishonest.

 

[painted wolf]

Sure they do. Money has been given on projects that last year and years for results, hoping for future benefits, that's why it is called research. I am not saying all the time, but to say it doesn't happen is dishonest.

Some (if not most) research takes years and years. You can't get instant results on a multi-generational population study... nor can you get quick results on cancer research.

Even when the research proves a treatment doesn't work, you still have learned valuable information. If you want to demand that science do things quickly, then you are going to get shoddy and untrustworthy results.

Why is needing more than one year to do your research dishonest?

wa:do

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Some (if not most) research takes years and years. You can't get instant results on a multi-generational population study... nor can you get quick results on cancer research.

Even when the research proves a treatment doesn't work, you still have learned valuable information. If you want to demand that science do things quickly, then you are going to get shoddy and untrustworthy results.

Why is needing more than one year to do your research dishonest?

wa:do

It is not always dishonest. I am saying if the pie is much smaller now, it will effect the livelihood of MANY in the arena. I'm sorry to say, not all scientists are saints. They compete to get funding, and the person with the biggest story, usually gets the biggest funding.
Anyway it is not worth arguing over. I think science is important, and long research as well.
All I was pointing out is greedy need for money does not skip over the science community or academia.

 

[Sunstone]

The day they hand Mike a grant for researching the end of the world is the day I agree with him that a lot of research money must be wasted.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The day they hand Mike a grant for researching the end of the world is the day I agree with him that a lot of research money must be wasted.

Funny, but I would say the same thing about many NASA projects :yes: