The progress of science: How far have we really come?

[Kerrie]

I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

 

[marcus]

I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

I thought some more about it and decided I wasnt clear enough on the issues of what is science and what constitutes progress. so I erased my initial answer. I still think it is a constructive question and hope other people will take a shot at it.

 

[Vast]

Accumulation of knowledge could be a scale to gauge our progress in understanding the universe.
If by how far to the end of this scale we are, you are referring to something like the theory of everything, then perhaps we still have some significant challenges ahead of us.

 

[Canute]

I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

I feel the question is too narrow. Clearly science has made enormous progress over the last couple of centuries at explaining the world scientifically. The bigger question - which I suspect is what you meant to ask - is whether scientific progress constitutes 'progress' and if so progress towards what.

 

[Nereid]

A few comments - questions really - about 'progress':

As Canute has said, in terms of explaining the world scientifically, great progress. How to measure this kind of progress?

Progress may also be made in terms of efficiency - for each unit of input, how much output do we get today vs 100/1000 years ago?

Then there's the internal measure; if science is essentially a series of programs, how many new programs are started every decade? how many are essentially completed? how long does it take to complete one? This is related to, but not quite the same as, efficiency.

Many people judge scientific progress by its utility, for example the extent to which applications of science have alleviated suffering, enriched wellbeing, etc. Scientists may not like this measure, but in a very real sense it's this 'return on investment' by which the 'shareholders' judge progress (and continue to provide further capital to keep the limited liability company afloat).

One last one for now: how well has science been applied to science? How well do we understand the theory and practice of doing science, its strengths and weaknesses, its limits? How extensively have hypotheses about the nature of science been rigourously subject to testing?

 

[selfAdjoint]

You can also measure progress by the things everybody used to believe that have been shown to be false. The Earth isn't flat, the sky isn't solid, the sun doesn't go across the sky. the solar system isn't the center of the universe, and so on.

Currently the public is slowly learning:

There isn't s definite state of rest and another definite state of motion.
The world isn't classical.
The world wasn't created a few thousand years ago.
Living creatures weren't explicitly designed to be the way they are.

 

[Canute]

You can also measure progress by the things everybody used to believe that have been shown to be false. The Earth isn't flat, the sky isn't solid, the sun doesn't go across the sky. the solar system isn't the center of the universe, and so on.

Currently the public is slowly learning:

There isn't s definite state of rest and another definite state of motion.
The world isn't classical.
The world wasn't created a few thousand years ago.
Living creatures weren't explicitly designed to be the way they are.

Are you sure that what 'the public' (non-scientists I presume) are 'slowly learning' constitutes progress? Or are we just constructing another false paradigm? Not being argumentative but I don't see it as being quite so simple.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Are you sure that what 'the public' (non-scientists I presume) are 'slowly learning' constitutes progress? Or are we just constructing another false paradigm? Not being argumentative but I don't see it as being quite so simple.

In spite of the popularity of the paradigm, uh, paradigm, I don't think it really describes what goes on in science. And the experimental evidence for the points I was making is enormous. If you wnat to deny them, it's not just a matter of bull session; you have to confront the evidence and say why your alternative theory either accounts for it or differs from it. Note that the incompleteness of, say, the standard model (~ 19 undetermined numbers) is not an excuse for rejecting the uncertainty principle.

The public is slowly learning these things. Stories appear in newspapers and online. Basic quantum mechanics is taught in High School. The very existence of PF and its success show that outreach is possible and desired.

 

[Kerrie]

You can also measure progress by the things everybody used to believe that have been shown to be false. The Earth isn't flat, the sky isn't solid, the sun doesn't go across the sky. the solar system isn't the center of the universe, and so on.

Currently the public is slowly learning:

There isn't s definite state of rest and another definite state of motion.
The world isn't classical.
The world wasn't created a few thousand years ago.
Living creatures weren't explicitly designed to be the way they are.

SA, this is sort of where I am getting at, although we are pretty educated about the world around us, how much do we yet to learn about things unseen/unknown because our technology isn't advanced enough yet? Yes, we are much more advanced comparitively speaking then from 150 years ago, but how much more is there to discover? Are we just beginning?

 

[Janitor]

Pardon my tangential comment-

I go through phases of listening to Christian radio and television. One of the most fascinating preachers to listen to is John Hagee. I wonder if anybody here has heard of him? He can really work up his audience, get them to "Amen!"-ing and even clapping their hands in enthusiastic applause.

I would bet that Rev. Hagee and most of his congregation disavow at least the last two items on SelfAdjoint's list of things the public as a whole is slowly learning! I wouldn't be surprised if their attitude toward the first two items on his list is, "I don't know about that, and I don't care."

 

[Canute]

In spite of the popularity of the paradigm, uh, paradigm, I don't think it really describes what goes on in science. And the experimental evidence for the points I was making is enormous. If you wnat to deny them, it's not just a matter of bull session; you have to confront the evidence and say why your alternative theory either accounts for it or differs from it. Note that the incompleteness of, say, the standard model (~ 19 undetermined numbers) is not an excuse for rejecting the uncertainty principle.

The public is slowly learning these things. Stories appear in newspapers and online. Basic quantum mechanics is taught in High School. The very existence of PF and its success show that outreach is possible and desired.

I'm not questioning the experimental evidence. I'm just wondering if scientific progress constitutes 'Progress' in any wider sense. It isn't obvious that it does so you'd have to make the case.

Also there is no reason that 'the public' should learn all these things. They are mostly too esoteric to have any bearing on anything much unless you're a scientist or particularly interested in new technology. I don't mean to sound anti-science, we couldn't get out of bed in the morning without the scientififc method, but it seems undeniable that all the important questions that human beings ask lie well outside science.

 

[Janitor]

Does anybody know if the former Taliban government of Afghanistan freely allowed the teaching of modern science in the schools of that nation? It seems to me that unrestricted scientific inquiry would be very threatening to a fundamentalist theocracy.

It is said that folk singer Woody Guthrie painted "This machine kills fascists" on his guitar. Maybe a good motto for science would be "This methodology kills religious fanaticism."

 

[Canute]

Does anybody know if the former Taliban government of Afghanistan freely allowed the teaching of modern science in the schools of that nation? It seems to me that unrestricted scientific inquiry would be very threatening to a fundamentalist theocracy.

It is said that folk singer Woody Guthrie painted "This machine kills facists" on his guitar. Maybe a good motto for science would be "This methodology kills religious fanaticism."

Yes I think that's the problem. But thinking rationally does not entail accepting science's metaphysics, and the fact that there are violent religious fanatics does not make believing in God wrong. It all depends on the circumstances. The scientific view brings with it, (for no good reason but it does), materialism, relative morality, and the breakdown of socal order and traditional lifestyles in favour of homogenous markets, global economies of scale, mass market consumerism, and all the other disbenefits of believing in nothing. There are two points of view.

BTW I don't Woodie Guthrie was praising the scientific method. For him the bankers and industrialists of unregulated capitalism were the fascists, not over-enthusiastic believers in God.

Off topic but I suspect it is a serious mistake to associate anti-American terrorism with irrational religious beliefs. The issues are about nationalism, cultural domination, oil, the right to self-determination, and in particular the right to control one's own economy, resources and trading arrangements. It just so happens that lots of the oil is in Muslim countries, and having natural reserves of oil is becoming a real liability these days for almost any nation.

 

[Janitor]

the bankers and industrialists of unregulated capitalism... - Canute

There was a great deal of anger toward banks by farmers in states such as Oklahoma in the Dust Bowl days. The bankers, naturally, wanted to go strictly by the book in foreclosing on farmland after enough payments were missed. The farmers, having weather-related problems, expected compassion and some flexibility.

Incidentally, folk singer Pete Seeger practically made a career out of writing and performing pro-union songs in the middle part of the 20th century.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm not questioning the experimental evidence. I'm just wondering if scientific progress constitutes 'Progress' in any wider sense. It isn't obvious that it does so you'd have to make the case.

Also there is no reason that 'the public' should learn all these things. They are mostly too esoteric to have any bearing on anything much unless you're a scientist or particularly interested in new technology. I don't mean to sound anti-science, we couldn't get out of bed in the morning without the scientififc method, but it seems undeniable that all the important questions that human beings ask lie well outside science.

That's changing the subject. I don't believe in "progress". Did when I was a kid, but not for decades; the human species is what it is and the only mode of change offered (singularity and gene manipulation) don't look attractive.

But science really does find more and more about how the real universe really works. And the public understanding lags a century or so behind.

 

[Canute]

But science really does find more and more about how the real universe really works. And the public understanding lags a century or so behind.

It's true that public understanding of science lags behind that of professional scientists, (if it didn't there's be no point in employing scientists) but I'm not sure that's relevant to question here.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's true that public understanding of science lags behind that of professional scientists, (if it didn't there's be no point in employing scientists) but I'm not sure that's relevant to question here.

Kerries original question was
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

I did expand a bit in order to avoid having science just an elitist arcanum. Scientists are trying to educate the public as best they know how, and they do think their growth in understanding is the property of humanity rather than just some enlightened few.

 

[Canute]

I did expand a bit in order to avoid having science just an elitist arcanum. Scientists are trying to educate the public as best they know how, and they do think their growth in understanding is the property of humanity rather than just some enlightened few.

The question is whether the progress in explaining the universe scientifically represents progress in some absolute sense. It would only do so if it is true, or more nearly true that other explanations. Unfortunately for all science's progress, as measured in its own terms, we don't know this.

Also I don't see how the fact that scientists think the public need educating in science implies anything about whether scientific progress is progress in any absolute sense. It just means that scientists think it is, and they'd hardly be likely to think otherwise.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science has going for it that it produces ideas that, when converted to technology, work. I have lived through a lot of history and sociology and politics and commerce in my time, and science is the ONLY human endeavor that can make that statement. Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere. ESP periodically comes up with a new champion, who pretty soon goes away again without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile new avenues of science open up, like molecular biology, and start making predictions that work and pretty soon they generate new technology that relieves another set of human problems. And the mystics and philosophers shift the gob of old fat into their other cheek and keep on chewing.

 

[Kerrie]

lol SA, you bring a good point up...my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?

i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...

 

[selfAdjoint]

We can't say what the percentage is. We're climbing Mount Understanding and the top is obscured in the mists of the future. But we can see where we are, and we can look back and see how far we've come, and we believe (this is a religious belief if you like) that the mountain is only finitely high, and that there is a top, and that eventually our descendents will reach it.

 

[Canute]

Science has going for it that it produces ideas that, when converted to technology, work. I have lived through a lot of history and sociology and politics and commerce in my time, and science is the ONLY human endeavor that can make that statement. Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere. ESP periodically comes up with a new champion, who pretty soon goes away again without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile new avenues of science open up, like molecular biology, and start making predictions that work and pretty soon they generate new technology that relieves another set of human problems. And the mystics and philosophers shift the gob of old fat into their other cheek and keep on chewing.

How do you know what mystics know or don't know? When was the last time you thought it was worth seriously checking out what they say about the nature of reality? I doubt you ever have, since it is not science.

Science is great for producing technology, can't disagree with that. If that's the end of your curiosity about yourself and the universe then fine. But don't expect to taken seriously if 'gobs of old fat' is as much as you understand about metaphysics and mysticism. Would you take me seriously if I said QM was gobs of old fat? You'd laugh, and rightly so.

 

[Canute]

lol SA, you bring a good point up...my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?

i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...

Science cannot explain the existence of physical reality by its own definition, and we are not one percent closer to explaining it than was Plato. So although science tells us a great deal about the relationship between physical objects and forces etc. it is kind of meaningless to wonder how 'progress' towards an 'explanation of everything' is to be measured. Our existence cannot be explained scientifically so it is unfair on science to mark it down for not explaining it yet.

The problem is that according to the scientific view metaphysical questions are unanswerable. This means that if we want to make progress toward understanding the 'absolute reality of our physical world' we have to use meta-scientific methods.

In case you're interested it's worth reading Stephen Hawking 'The End of Physics' and Heideggers 'What is Metaphysics', findable online. Both seem relevant here.

 

[Kerrie]

thanks canute for your input, i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.

 

[tabloid]

the complexity of the tools we use is slowly increasing...thus progress,in my view, exists.

 

[Canute]

thanks canute for your input, i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.

It's an interesting question. It seems to be assumed quite often that science can answer all our questions about ourselves and the universe if we just wait for it to make more progress.

However we've always known that the scientific method has its limits and that it must leave all the big questions unanswered. This will be true a thousand years in the future just as it was for Plato and Aristotle. (I wish it was mentioned in the education system from time to time so that people didn't spend their lives confusing the extremely dull and mundane scientific conception of the world, based on a load of arbitrary metaphysical assumptions, with the awesome real thing).

Science has a very specialist theoretical way of looking at the world and it cannot ever explain anything properly. Ex hypothesis it cannot even explain matter, the thing it is best at studying. Science has its place but is not a good way of understanding the world. We make every possible use of its findings so it is useful to do it, but the limits of science are n not the limits of existence, and they do not define the limits of what we can understand, explain, reason about or know.

Because of all this I would say that your original question is unanswerable. Science isn't making progress towards a definable goal, it's an ongoing process of commercial and military innovation, so there is no yardstick against which to measure where we've got to in terms of progress.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How do you know what mystics know or don't know? When was the last time you thought it was worth seriously checking out what they say about the nature of reality? I doubt you ever have, since it is not science.

Science is great for producing technology, can't disagree with that. If that's the end of your curiosity about yourself and the universe then fine. But don't expect to taken seriously if 'gobs of old fat' is as much as you understand about metaphysics and mysticism. Would you take me seriously if I said QM was gobs of old fat? You'd laugh, and rightly so.

How do YOU know what I know or don't? How do you know I never studied mysticism or experienced an unexplainable happening? This is just cheap ad hominem slurs. Stick to asnwering my points rather than fantasizing about my background.

 

[TENYEARS]

We have gone no where. We have used the knowledge of the few to make money for the pigs by milking the cows of many. The understanding of the universe is an act upon the individual. Science is being used to destroy the planet for an easy life, which for the most part becomes an unbalanced life because of the detachment from nature. WAKE UP. The world as you know it is being destroyed, and the unconscious behavior of humanity perpetuated by the actions of pigishness, will destroy the world as we know it.

Had we lived as Indians, we may not have lived as long, but we would have lived as human beings. With dignity and purpose. Experiencing life as it is in a balance with nature. The mysteries of the universe would have been solvable and understandable. Only in this case, belief would be less and experience would be more.

I have seen the future in the past, I see it now and I will continue to see it. Your beliefs are irrelevant, unless they guide towards reality. Reality will not come out of belief, it will be born of pain and a price. Without the price, there will be no reality. You use your joy on other things so that will not take you there, you will have to pay the price in pain or you will not be willing to pay a price to find the reality. In that case, spend your credit cards kids because, you will be chased down, and there will be pain. The faster you run the quicker it will catch you.

Turn from your ways, cleanse yourselfs and find your truth, your real science, your real relgion, your destiny.

 

[TENYEARS]

Kerrie, I could tell you now. I could prove the unexplainable, explain it. Gravity, matter, god, meaning of life, how a human being may fly, what your dreams are, what thought is, what it is not, how big infinity is, and one very simple thought that would really blow you away. Yep. You would believe me, hell, you would have proof, like the pen of course. You would say cool, unbelievable and yet what? What would it change? I will somehow be involved in what you speak, how I do not know only that I will.

 

[Canute]

How do YOU know what I know or don't? How do you know I never studied mysticism or experienced an unexplainable happening? This is just cheap ad hominem slurs. Stick to asnwering my points rather than fantasizing about my background.

You've made your position clear. You said, for instance "Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere". I naturally assumed that you don't know anything about these things.