There have been decent scientific advances but have these advance been beneficial for progress?  Sure there are numerous examples you can bring up that are good but you can also bring up numerous "advances" that have actually made the human race worse.  Take automatic transmissions for example.  Sure it might be nice not having to worry about shifting (especially in stop and go traffic) however this has led to a disconnect with the driving experience.  Now people eat, put on make up, text, surf the internet on their smartphone, etc while they drive.  Sure people would still attempt this if they drove stick (which I am guilty of some distractions while driving but lately I've been pretty good except using my phone for phone calls) but they would have a much more difficult time being a shitty driver (not paying attention to the road).  Also, take high fructose corn syrup which has probably helped double diabetes since its introduction.  There are good advances and there are bad "advances".

Heisenberg states that observation causes the partial wave-form collapse, which is the result. Prior to observation a result is not known - stating that it changed is not true at all, a deterministic outcome was not yet formed.

As to the errenfest paradox, Hrvoje Nikolic points out that the paradox disappears when (in accordance with general theory of relativity) each piece of the rotating disk is treated separately, as living in his own local non-inertial frame.

I will agree about Telsa.

I think you are mixing science with technology (applications of science).

Science by definition is the study of nature and essentially the universe. When a scientist performs a scientific analysis, he does it (or at least should do) to extend the knowledge we already have.

The application of science is a completely different aspect that can be used either for the benefit or harm of humanity and is left up to the individuals in question. For example nuclear fission was first discovered by Otto Hahn (and a few others) while trying to better understand radioactivity. It was later used to produce electricity in nuclear power plants (which is good) but also used to produce the nuclear bombs to kill many people (which is bad).

So although the applications of science can be good or bad, the acquisition of knowledge (which is science) in itself is a good thing as I imagine everyone would agree.

Yes & no.

We know the core of the earth is solid. Thanks to unchanging laws of physics, this is something we can say is a fact and not a theory. 

You clearly don't know any scientists. They are fully aware of what we do and do not know.

I take it you don't consider computers a beneficial invention for mankind? Also, I don't exactly see how your argument wasn't a weak one. We'd probably still be here even if NOTHING at all was ever invented or researched. Well, I guess we'd have to have spears or something similar... But really, that's about it. There's not much more mankind really needed to survive.

I've thought the same thing for a while now. Very good observation OP.

I don't think you have an appreciation for how theories work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Characteristics_of_theories

Q.E.D this thread.

You, yourself, quoted Descartes. If all that we know exists is ourselves ("I think, therefore, I am"), then absolutely nothing else has to be true. We could be being deceived by a "great deceiver".