History Main / ScienceIsWrong

** Early in [[Literature/StormFront 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's confrontation with this -- [[spoiler:Butters]] --is something of a subplot in ''Literature/DeadBeat''.

* Deconstructed by Dara O'Briain in one of his live shows, where he discusses homeopathy and his irritation with it. He points out that the real-life accusation leveled at science that "it doesn't know everything" is inherently flawed because the whole point of science is that scientists are ''fully aware'' that they don't know everything, and if they did "it'd stop" -- there would be no point in continuing. [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE&feature=related Enjoy!]] Don't drink while he's talking.

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

* One ''Webcomic/{{XKCD}}'' [[http://xkcd.com/298 "Tesla Coil"]]: The world doesn't actually make sense. Science doesn't work. No one told you because you're cute when you get into something. Still, neat toy. [[SubvertedTrope Subverted]] in the AltText though. "For scientists, this can be the hardest thing [[AllJustADream about dreams]]." The comic in general averts this trope. "[[CatchPhrase Science: It works, bitches.]]"

* Played for laughs in ''WebVideo/{{lonelygirl15}}'', in which Bree's CatchPhrase is "Proving science wrong!" She creates a series of videos which purport to disprove scientific theories (but don't).

** 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's confrontation with this -- [[spoiler:Butters]] --is something of a subplot in ''Literature/DeadBeat''.

* Mocked in ''Series/ItsAlwaysSunnyInPhiladelphia'' when Mac tries to win an argument by proving that “science is a liar sometimes”. It quickly becomes apparent that he has no idea how science works, as he just cites instances of [[ScienceMarchesOn famous scientists having their theories disproved by later scientists]]. Dennis turns it against him by baiting him into trying to prove his point by ''dis''proving evolution, which Mac fails at catastrophically.

* ''Literature/{{Unsong}}'': Everything we know about the universe is proven wrong when the Apollo 8 mission, en route to the Moon, instead crashes into the divine crystal sphere that encases the Earth and cracks it. This flaw destroys the logic of the world and causes the original order of God's creation to reassert itself: Hell becomes [[CosmicRetcon (and always was)]] real, angels float among the clouds, and speaking the names of God alters reality. Partway through the book, a paragraph is spent describing, in ironic tones, how the roles of science and religion have been reversed:

* ''Literature/{{Unsong}}'': Everything we know about the universe is proven wrong when the Apollo 8 mission, en route to the Moon, instead crashes into the divine crystal sphere that encases the Earth and cracks it. This flaw causes the original order of God's creation to reassert itself: Hell becomes [[CosmicRetcon (and always was)]] real, angels float among the clouds, and speaking the names of God alters reality. Partway through the book, a paragraph is spent describing, in ironic tones, how the roles of science and religion have been reversed:

* ''Literature/Unsong'': Everything we know about the universe is proven wrong when the Apollo 8 mission, en route to the Moon, instead crashes into the divine crystal sphere that encases the Earth and cracks it. This flaw causes the original order of God's creation to reassert itself: Hell becomes [[CosmicRetcon (and always was)]] real, angels float among the clouds, and speaking the names of God alters reality. Partway through the book, a paragraph is spent describing, in ironic tones, how the roles of science and religion have effectively been reversed:

* The ''Wiki/SCPFoundation'' features [[https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-033 SCP-033]] ("The Missing Number"), an equation which adds up to an integer which non-paranormal mathematics has somehow missed. Since we missed it, none of our mathematical formulas work with it. In fact, it causes anything related to mathematics to completely ''break down'': Calculators, machine-printed paper, and the entire internet if it ever got online.

** 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.

[[folder:Film]]

[[folder:Web Originals]]

[[folder:Other]]
* This trope often fails to take into account the attitude in modern science that Science is ''Incomplete'', hence scientists anticipate that many theories and principles will probably be proven "wrong" in light of new information. Science is limited to what we can observe and measure, so how "right" it is is only so in light of our current limited understanding (and given the vast size of and complexity of the universe, all information will be limited for a long, long time to come). As such, while being "wrong" may annoy a bit - and some diehards hell-bent on a pet theory will just not let go - most scientists will be ''excited'' when proven wrong. Just think of all the possibilities, the great new directions, and the applications! For example, [[http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720 this article in ''Harper's'']] describes a group of people who have come to the conclusion the entirety of physics may be, if not ''wrong'', at least correct only in a very limited circumstance, and that science itself [[TheseAreThingsManWasNotMeantToKnow may be unable ever to find, let alone explain]] the laws of physics. This group is called... um... "[[MindScrew physicists]]." This also leads to the common dismissal: "If we can't really definitely know everything, why bother/why trust it/why care?" Look at it this way: If you're lost, a map with a piece torn out of it is still useful compared to having no map at all. Incomplete it may be (and may possibly remain), but what we do know is useful, and the more bits we fill in the more information we have to make use of.
* Believers in the paranormal-- PsychicPowers, AlienAbduction, and other NewAge ideas-- often criticize science for being too closed-minded to accept their ideas. These people usually fail to give compelling evidence to wake the interests of more conventional scientists. Naturally, the latter group would be excited by new stuff; imagine dropping a ghost on the table of a scientist, they would be delighted to analyze it and help you out with more. Alas, since that hasn't happened yet, most of them remain skeptical.
* The jury is still out on whether [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend 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]].
* Played with by paranormalist author Charles Fort, who spent most of the 1920s and 1930s cataloging various accounts of "damned things," or phenomena which "science" categorically explains away as nothing of any significance. These included topics like PsychicPowers, SpontaneousCombustion, {{Teleportation}}, and many other similar matters. However, as Fort himself wrote, he didn't believe anything he wrote of, but merely felt that everything we take for granted (religion, politics, scientific positivism) should be questioned constantly to keep them vital and relevant (a position Creator/RobertAntonWilson would come to describe as "ideal skepticism"). ''Magazine/ForteanTimes'' keeps this perspective alive along with the philosophy of Fort.
* Played straight with German Sterligov, Russian millionaire. 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 promptly followed his own advice and moved with his family to a house in the middle of nowhere, to live in his ideal lifestyle without all that damned technology, education and medical care. He still preaches his views. [[{{Hypocrite}} Through the Internet]].
* [[http://www.thewychefamily.com/beliefs/postmodern-science.html Post-modernism]] and post-structuralism are philosophical movements that reject any kind of firm, immutable truth. Science at its best is an incomplete description of an observation made using flawed tools, and at its worst, a dogmatic inquisition that locks up heretics guilty of blaspheming Reality under the designation "mental illness".
* 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.]]
* Raymond Moody, the man who first coined the phrase "NearDeathExperience", is sometimes accused of holding this viewpoint because he apparently holds the belief that science cannot investigate the claims of those who have the experiences. [[QuoteMine What he actually said]] is that the experiences are not ''yet'' a scientific question (because of the various ethical questions, current limitations in technology, and the fact that no one working in the field can really agree on the best ways to investigate these claims) but that, [[ScienceMarchesOn one day, they will be]].
* One common misunderstanding about what science is regards "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 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 scientifically "right or wrong" is a very flawed statement.
[[/folder]]