why science fails some time?
411706
Not everytime but when a scientists wants to prove themselves greatest and breakes the law of nature that time science fails.They shuldn't forget that they can't deafeat the power of nature.\n\nEx:- Titanic. They thought that it was unbreakable but it broke.
29764
None really - science is a methodology.  The scientists might have faith in all sorts of things -but science itself does not.
978136
in a sense. all other scientists in a field act as a check on anyone making discoveries or statements. if something can be proven by multiple people doing independent research than it will become widely accepted as scientific fact. \nwith technology changing and advancing all the time, some stuff is still proven wrong after years believing it was true. there is nothing we can do about that because sometimes new technologies help us to see things we never saw before. we don't necessarily prove the first thing wrong (although that happens too) mostly we prove something to be true and then later prove that some other aspect is more true. \nit's complicated, but then again, it's science.
1083114
Science is based on facts.. beliefs are based on ignorance.
864347
You already answered it with your question, it's a theory. There are a lot of theories but that don't make any of them right, science is constantly changing as they figure out whats wrong and right.\n\nThis is a wait and see thing but don't put any belief into it til science has figured out what is truth and what isn't or your going to be all screwed up with weird idea's.
73846
Science is a human activity, and therefore it suffers from the same failings as many other human activities. One of these failings is a tendency to do unethical things from time to time by various participants, like steal each other's work or be less than honest about the outcome of various experiments. \n\nFor example, if one looks into the story of evolution, one finds that Darwin does not lay sole claim to the theory of natural selection. Wallace, Wells, Mathew, Buffon, Owen, and even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and many others independently came up with the idea, or are contenders for the title of "father of evolution". The actual priority claims are somewhat murky, and there have been charges of ethical lapses of various kinds. \n\nSimilarly, it appears that Newton might have fudged some of his celestial mechanics  and optics data and his theory of sound to get agreement between theory and experiment. Even the monk Gregor Mendel's data look a little too good to be true, apparently.  \n\nIn these cases, if science is to remain vital, I believe that ethical restraint must be practiced. Otherwise the entire enterprise might descend into a useless morass. \n\nHowever, I do not believe these are the events you are referring to; I believe you are referring to blocking certain types of inquiry or investigation because it offends some sense of propriety of some group or society. I will argue that in all human activities, like warfare, and politics, and driving, there are probably some rules for behavior that can and should be adopted. Otherwise, one would end up still condoning practices like torture and the "science" of Dr. Mengele. As uncomfortable as I am with imposing artificial boundaries on scientific inquiry, the potential coarsening of society that might result from unbridled investigations should give us all pause.
1167406
When scientists make observations, they attempt to explain what is happening through a hypothesis. B/c it is a best educated "guess" it has to be tested over & over again.\n\nA theory, on the otherhand, is well-tested & widely accepted by members of the scientific community. Well-tested means that it has been tested time & time again w/ the same end result each time.
300031
if u don't learn science, there would be nothin rite now, noo computers , no phones, no lights, nothin! cos science is the study of things around u, and no science, u get nothin, but more dangerous diseases.
543620
Mistakes do happen\nYes
1047819
A failed experiment generally means (if the experiment was well designed) that your explanation for a phenomenon was wrong. People, including scientists, are naturally interested in explanations that might be right, so it is tougher to get negative results published - and I would argue researchers are less interested in writing them up. However, such results are actually valuable, and since few ideas are original, publishing negative results would probably save a lot of time and research money by preventing repeating an experiment in the future.\n\nOne solution, and this is often done, is to combine negative results with related experiments that have positive results. I've done this and it does help to tell a more complete story about a phenomenon, while making the publication of negative results more palatable.
993739
The laws of physics can never be defied. It sometimes seems that way when touching upon a subject we don't yet fully understand (like for example a black hole). The truth is we don't yet know the full extent of physical laws that govern these phenomena.
145208
It happens from time to time, just try back again later.
210979
It's a luck thing... It's when you try to do something twice, and you failed both times, just try it again, and more than likely it will work!
368780
Research fails in Nigeria and Africa for the following reasons:\n1.  Limited access to libraries, laboratories and IT facilities.\n2.  Limited funding for research and few research grants.\n3.  Lack of Infrastructure.\n4.  Lack of political will to support research.
94336
Well, they are related because science always contradict religion.\n\nIn religion, miracles and unusual things are accepted, but in science, it is always needed to have a reason or understanding of all the events.
118236
Science does not really "prove" anything. All science does is produce theories that try to explain the data we have from experiments or observations. All theories are eventually expected to be superceded by better theories that explain more of the data. \n\nIt is a matter of interpretation whether the data we have can be explained by the existence of God or not. There is no solid consensus. \n\nAlso, normally science just deals with the natural world, and avoids supernatural causes. Once one is postulating supernatural causes, it is not science.
619623
we revise our hypotheses after we find out they are not correct. Or we drop that hypotheses and go back to the drawing board. But even when we have an idea that is proven wrong, we still gain valuable information.