No doubt, science has a lot of contradiction.

They make a law and later a new discovery nullifies the law.

One notable law which has allways been contradicted is the laws of thermodynamics
various discoveries such as bomb blast has prooved it wrong.

Any explanation for such contradiction?

I don't really see the law of thermodynamic contradicting itself nor do science, but one thing Causeth it 'change'.

What is the law of thermodynamics again sef?*Thinking*

tobechi20: No doubt, science has a lot of contradiction.

They make a law and later a new discovery nullifies the law.

One notable law which has allways been contradicted is the laws of thermodynamics
various discoveries such as bomb blast has prooved it wrong.

Any explanation for such contradiction?

Which of the laws?

1st, 2nd or 3rd?
How did bomb blast prove any of them wrong?

You ignoramus

tobechi20: No doubt, science has a lot of contradiction.

They make a law and later a new discovery nullifies the law.

One notable law which has allways been contradicted is the laws of thermodynamics
various discoveries such as bomb blast has prooved it wrong.

Any explanation for such contradiction?

@ bolded.... How does a bomb blast contradict the law of thermodynamics

tobechi20: No doubt, science has a lot of contradiction.

They make a law and later a new discovery nullifies the law.

One notable law which has allways been contradicted is the laws of thermodynamics
various discoveries such as bomb blast has prooved it wrong.

Any explanation for such contradiction?

Good afternoon Tobe,

Are you sure about this? I don't think I have heard or read about a scientific law that became obsolete or disproved or became contradictory. Though each scientific law is based on some principle, there is a need to differentiate a scientific law from a scientific theory.

The scientific process is such that theories are subject to change if there is a better understanding of that theory backed up by FACTS and an ability to prove these facts. As such, theories can and do change but this does not imply a change in a scientific law. It would be very difficult to find a law that is contradictory (if at all it exists) because it takes a lot before a theory climb up the ladder to become a law.

It would be very interesting though if some time in the future a law of science would be disproved but I don't think that time will come soon (if at all it comes).

But again can you help us understand which of the laws of thermodynamics do you think "bomb blasts" contradicts?

Thank you!

Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed





The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

^^^
Still don't get your point

You have a poor understanding of those laws op

http://home.earthlink.net/~mflabar/second_law_of_thermodynamics.htm

You also don't understand how the scientific method works, particularly effective theories. And the difference between theories, laws, hypotheses, etc.

Incidentally the first law is seemingly broken perpetually, but only on the quantum level and it evens itself out. In fact, it's virtually completely unnoticeable on the macroscopic scale. Also, we don't have the full picture there, so depending on future insights the law might not be violated even then. Note again that in practice, on the macroscopic level, the law isn't broken as quantum effects are far too negligible.

How are situations like these sorted out then? Again, look up the scientific method and effective theories. There is no dogma involved anywhere there, at all. Any commonly accepted theory, law, etc, found to be wrong after non-trivial objective tests is gladly discarded. Absolutely nothing wrong there, unlike say religions, which have bh leaders claiming the earth is flat in the 21st century.

Either ways, it's usually details that need clearing up, not the backbone of the theories themselves. Newton's equations put people on the moon, but if you used them to manage gps satellites they will fail you. Doesn't mean they are wrong, it means they are approximations that are not accurate enough in those situations. In other words, they are not the full picture, and indeed they were never even claimed to be the full picture. Just an improvement, or a better picture, to what was available at the time (in this case though a vast one, so much so they're basically foundational, so probably a special case). Arriving at the full picture is done so by placing an emphasis on objective facts, or rather, by using the scientific method.

science is a gift man was given.
it becomes contradictory when man uses his own bias to claim something is fact.

the theory of evolution for example rather than belief in God.