Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us

Lanxon writes "An in-depth feature in Wired explores the reason science may be failing us. Quoting: 'For too long, we've pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge. If only we devote more resources to research or dissect the system at a more fundamental level or search for ever more subtle correlations, we can discover how it all works. But a cause is not a fact, and it never will be; the things we can see will always be bracketed by what we cannot. And this is why, even when we know everything about everything, we'll still be telling stories about why it happened. It's mystery all the way down.'"

Comments

Re:Who says

[Anne Thwacks]

Science is definitely failing the nut jobs who believe random twaddle is a better guide to stuff.

Re:Not proper experiments.

[Xaedalus]

I'm just curious, did you miss the part in the article where Pfizer invested $1B and had 25,000 volunteers with an entire research team dedicated to torcetrapib, following all appropriate research protocols? Now, I'm sure you're a flawless genius who gets research protocols right every time all the time and thus has standing to criticize a giant of the pharmaceutical industry, but I'm also willing to venture a guess that $1B, a dedicated corporate research team, and 25,000 volunteers gets some pretty decent results, plus properly-set up control and empirical groups.

No, I'm pretty sure (and here's where I'm going to get personally insulting and troll you, so please take notice) you're a strong believer in the reductionable determinism of the universe. You probably believe that Truth is objective, and that any and all problems can be solved by science given enough time, resources, and protocols. You probably believe that Error is first and foremost a product of faulty ill-disciplined minds, and that with enough attention and self-discipline Error can be eliminated from existence. And you probably also believe that we don't have souls and that we're just a bunch of biological automatons running on complex whorls of instinctual-based wetware who can be programmed and re-programmed at whim. Am I stinging yet? No, probably not. But here's where I am going to sting you: You're wrong. This article wasn't about inappropriate research protocols and projects being undertaken by highly paid idiots, this is a meditation on the nature of error and how our understanding of causality is flawed due to emphasis on deterministic, reductionable dogma spouted by idiots like yourself (and trust me sir, you ARE an idiot) who believe that everything can be predicted, measured, and known, and that we're all just mindless automatons groping in the endless dark. YOU are too attached to your idea of determinism and reductionism and that everything can be guessed, and so you fired off an emotional objection in which you masqueraded opinions as fact and TOLD A STORY about what you think happened (asserting it as Truth) rather than what actually did happen. And that is why YOU, sir, and others who spout similar dogmatic attitudes to yours are idiots of the finest caliber.

and yes, it was worth the emotional expenditure to troll you for just a second. Now please, laugh at me, shrug off my little attempt and rationalize it, then go back to being a mindless automaton with illusions of sentience and output your data in your meaningless life--which will soon end with extinction of your consciousness (and those of everyone you've ever cared about).