If science is infallible?

Scientific laws may be factual - as far as we can tell.

That has nothing to do with what people do with science and technology.

The nuclear reactors are obeying scientific laws!

Science by definition is not infallible. What science claims approaches fact.

The nuclear dilemmas are obeying science. They went wrong because politicians ignored scientists and set up reactors on a fault line.

Ummm... it's not science, it's technology and a structure created by business people who had to decide the balance between safety and profit. Putting a nuclear power station on a site prone to earthquakes and tsunamis was not a good idea and I bet they people who own it were told so by scientists, but scientific advise comes low down on the list of priorities with both business and government if it interferes with perceived profits.

Science is not always 100% correct and we do not currently have anywhere near a complete understanding of the natural world. Science is merely a means of getting closer and closer to that absolute truth and complete understanding. Maybe one day we will have both, but today we do not.

Edit:

"Science is a FACT" does not even make sense. What you're likely thinking of is that a scientific theory is tantamount to fact, while most seem to think that "theory" just means wild conjecture.

Science isn't infallible. It's simply the best way of gathering knowledge and demonstrably increasing our understanding of our surrounding world.

Edit: Clearly you have no idea what science is. Science is the most successful methodology of all time. Methodologies cannot be said to be "facts", they deal with entirely different things. Some scientific findings however CAN be said to be facts. Documented observed instances of things are by definition facts, like observed instances of evolution, or observed instances that Obama is the president of the US.

WTF are u talking abt?

Science, refers to observing and deducing conclusions, based on those observations. So you gather accurate info, and make a hypothesis, then you attempt to prove it by finding evidence in a controlled experiment, or by simple observation of a natural occurring.

So essentially, you're always doubting the conclusions until you find evidence to the contrary. this insures the highest probability of finding the truth in any context.

Your question refers to a nuclear deli-ma. The scientists will observe the problem and collect data to reach a conclusion as to the cause, they then hypothesis the best solution and experiment in controlled situations to find the best way to correct the deli-ma.

I'd like to see god just fix the problem. This also begs the question, If god loves all so much, how come the deli-ma was allowed to happen in the first place?

And I just hope you're reasonable enough not so say, because Japanese sinned or something. that's when religion stops being merely amusing and gets dangerous.

On the other hand, why would an all powerful, loving, benevolent deity allow a nuclear crisis in Japan, the only country ever to have been nuked in anger?

Are you suggesting that God doesn't like Japanese people?

Idiot.

Who ever said science is infallible? Nothing on this Earth is infallible.

EDIT: Of course and much of it IS fact. That's doesn't make it infallible. Wayne Gretzky scored more goals than any player in hockey history, this is a FACT. That doesn't mean Wayne Gretzky doesn't make mistakes.

Lolwut?

Who said it was infallible? Even if it were, why would the technology based upon it be infallible? Even if that technology was infallible as well, why would the people monitoring it somehow be magical infallible wizards?

Who said science is infallible and why do believers expect it?