Is science slowing to a standstill ?

[cragwolf]

Lesson to be learned : Predict the "end of science" at your peril!

Real lesson to be learned: predict anything at your peril.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I don't think there's good reason to think that science will continue to be useful for an indefinite period of time. That would put us in the position of gods, in a way, because it would imply that we have infinite potential for control over our environment. However, I think moving finger gives a good illustration of why it's dangerous to try to predict the end of science. We simply don't know what nature will have in store for us around the next corner. Simple linear extrapolations of current progress are, more than likely, completely wrong. I'm still not convinced that science is slowing, even in the short term, but if it is, I think we're a long way from being able to tell whether or not it represents the final decline.

 

[sd01g]

The Borg?

I do not want to be overly pessimistic, but it seems that many of the scientific advances of today and, probably the future, are conducive to an evolving Borg society (Star Trek lives on). The world is becoming more interconnected, while vastly increasing numbers of digital cameras that can connect to the internet result in less privacy. GPS advances to keep track of more and more locations of more and more things. Implants to keep track of animals are already here. How many more missing children before implants for children-voluntary of course-are widely used? The progress of science marches on, but is it going were we want it to go?

 

[Ratzinger]

Anybody read John Horgan "The End of Science"?

The question is, if there are any scientific revolutions still waiting for us, discoveries that will shake our worldview? Horgan says no.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes I read (most of) Horgan's book, but I am not persuaded by his arguments. Even if string theory and supersymmetry both collapse,as they may, that is just an opportunity for deeper theories to lead us forward, and my personal experience shows that young people are hot on the trail of these deeper ideas. And look at professor Rosenberg's post on the metaphysics board, reporting a convergence between professor Edelmann's neurophysical discoveries and his own philosophical constructions. Hogan was just producing a best-seller; if ye seek innovation and future science ye shall find it.

 

[saltydog]

Nemate, I believe you're unaware of non-linear effects: Just because we haven't seen "obvious revolutionary change" in the past 40 years, has no bearing if we'll see it tomorrow. You're using "linear extrapolation" and this in not correct in the affairs of the world; it is a highly-non-linear place: The slightest breeze can lead to a avalanche. I suspect there is no limit to discovery; it is a dense process and the route is circuitous.

The Mandelbrot Set broods in silent complexity at the center of the complex plane. Thus began a revolution.

 

[Burnsys]

You are missing nano technology, Quantum computers,Genetic enginering, and bio mechanics between other areas that have promising futures, and a lot of development waiting to be done...

 

[Crosson]

In the broad scheme of the universe, our science barely scratches the surface.

Astrophysics and Cosmology are some of the quickest growing fields of science in the last 25 years. Observations today are at a level of accuracy undreamed of just 10 years ago.

Thanks to this level of observational accuracy, we are sure that about 95% of the universe is exotic, totally unknown, matter. Not made of protons and electrons, not found on the periodic table.

Despite the fact that the universe is primarily made of exotic matter, particle physicisist throw around the words "theory of everything" as if they are ven close.

 

[sd01g]

Thanks to this level of observational accuracy, we are sure that about 95% of the universe is exotic, totally unknown, matter. Not made of protons and electrons, not found on the periodic table.

.

I do not want to appear to be overly dogmatic, but it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that it is impossible to know anything REAL about 'totaly unknown' matter that is not made of protons or electrons. Of course, it is very easy to imagine anything--including 'unknown matter'. The most useful aspect of the scientific method is that it helps differentiate the imaginary from the real. Really 'real equations' are not what define the Really Real when one is dealing with empirical, non-imaginary evidence.

 

[Crosson]

anyone who thinks about it that it is impossible to know anything REAL about 'totaly unknown' matter

You are not being dogmatic, you are being pedantic. What I could have said is "exotic matter that is totally unknown aside from the fact that it has mass". So we are able to calculate how much mass of exotic matter there is out there, but we do not know anything about this matter.

Really 'real equations' are not what define the Really Real when one is dealing with empirical, non-imaginary evidence.

We know about the exotic matter because of observation (of the effects due to its mass), not because of theory.

 

[Kube]

Science slowing down? Doubtful. Perhaps it's just that in our everyday life, we are continually fed changes in lifestyle and technology that don't really catch our attention. For example, I live in Singapore, and about 5 years ago, colour screen mobile phones were virtually non-existent. Today, you have phones with colour screens, camera's, radios, HDD's, etc. What most of the arguments against the SPEEDING UP of science is that there are no new technologies. No new revolutions. What they forget is that MINITURISATION ARE new technologies! 10 years ago, when I got my first PC, a normal HDD held a maximum of only 170mb of data. Today, I can get one 300gb for the same price.

To this extent, I measure an increase of more powerful miniturisations to an increase in technology. Just pick up a hardware mag, or subscribe to an e-mag. Dual-core chips came out this year. By next year, AMD plans to have more than 2 cores on a single CPU. If I'm not wrong, production begins in Jan. To me, that's like a doubling of speed, in so small a time!

 

[bross7]

I would argue that it is still quite the contrary. Big, yet simplified, projects may be less common, but the research into the specifics of science is providing a wide variety of discoveries. It's just that this type of stuff doesn't interest the general public, it doesn't mean that science isn't moving forward.

 

[Graz]

I must assume you have not yet watched the newly released documentary film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" ?

If you haven't, it's a must see. It is directly relevant to all of your discussion.

 

[mathwonk]

this reminds me of a cartoon of a caveman looking sadly at a stone wheel, and lamenting there was nothing left to invent.

 

[Locrian]

After decades of hype regarding how fast and how revolutionary scientific research was supposed to be, here we are in a world that is indeed almost identical to the one of 30 or 40 years ago.

This is not true! I live in a world almost completely different than the one we lived in 40 years ago. Vast areas of science have made huge leaps, and they have directly affected my life. How you can't see these things is puzzling indeed.

Take materials for instance. Fourty years ago they were almost entirely using simple carbide tools for cutting! Plastics were basic and expensive compared to today. CVD, PVD and other thin film technologies were childish and rediculous compared to what we have now. Metallurgy has made great progress - for heavens sake, fourty years ago they were still struggling with basic steel welding issues!

Information technology has changed the world, and it is all straight from advances in science. There is no aspect of our lives now that is not directly affected by our ability to transmit huge amounts of information quickly, efficiently and effectively over great distances. Credit cards, the internet, movies, music - this has changed how we live. I remember a CPA reminiscing with me how they used to do the books for a local car dealer by hand, and the huge mountains of paper that ensued. Today Peachtree does the same for a fraction of the work with ease.

These are only two tiny examples, but they are good ones. How you overlooked them is beyond me, but the advances in materials and information technology are due to fundamental advances in science and have changed the world. Science hasn't just lived up to the hype, it's surpassed it by making the most important advances where no one expected it.

 

[mathwonk]

psychiatrist looking at his patient; " did you just call me a quack?!" patient, who is a duck, "actually i was just clearing my throat".

 

[nevagil]

I agree with the thread premise, we haven't advanced

Sure there are little refinements like credit cards and computers envolving abit from TVs and phones. But nothing new or great.
In 1973 my dad died of colon cancer and doctors said cancer would be cured within 10 years. Then in 1980's doctors again said cancer would be cured by 1990. Now in 2005 millons and millons are spent with just talk and more promises and hope. Penicillin was the only big creation in the past century or so.
Smart people are no smarter, Wars are just as common, Secrets of the universe are no closer or further away.
If Strings or whatever are proved nothing will change. It is like when gravity was proved, nothing changed. People still fell out of trees and off cliffs.
I still plant tomato seeds in the ground, fertilize them with animal crap, water them, and chase away the rabbits and raccoons, - just like centuries ago.
Regards, Gil of www.surrealcity.com

 

[Locrian]

I still plant tomato seeds in the ground, fertilize them with animal crap, water them, and chase away the rabbits and raccoons, - just like centuries ago.

Yea, like centuries ago...except that now adays most people don't plant tomatoes, they instead can buy them year round in a supermarket that keeps them fresh using refrigeration technologies, uses databases to arrange efficient shipping from far away places, and takes inventory using technology combining lasers, wireless technology and computers. The tomatoes were not grown like they were a hundred years ago, but instead relied heavily on machinery, automation, and are shipped using freight trucks.

And best of all, they pay significantly less for them than they did one hundred years ago. In fact, its not worth most people's time to plant their own, unless they enjoy gardening, all due to scientific advances...for better or worse. I could understand if someone living in a small village, far from civilization, would argue that nothing has changed in farming in the past 100 years, but for someone to suggest that while using a computer to post on a messageboard on the internet is pattently absurd.

You don't live the same life people did 100 years ago. Not even close.

 

[nevagil]

HI L, I didn't mean things haven't changed, I mean they haven't advanced, improved

Sure farming uses trucks to transport tomato's, so what. A horse and buggy used to do that without polluting the ozone, maybe that would be an advancement if we started using horse and buggys again, it is all in how you view advancement. If you grow tomato's they actually have better taste and nutrition, storebought tomato's have less taste and nutrition. That is not advancement.
That is regression. Advancement is not adding pesticides and insecticides to veggies to make them easily accessible year round. Reduce the so-called modern techniques and maybe we will be healthier, that would be advancement.
And just because I use a computer to state this does not make it pattently absurb. If it does then maybe I should write it on paper with pen and ink like in the ole days and then it won't be pattently wrong?
Happy picnic days, Gil.

 

[Locrian]

Well, not using technology based heavily on scientific advances that you have claimed to have made little improvement would definitely go a long way towards not being hypocritical. That is part of the issue here, which is that typically those who claim science has made little progress recently are verily the same people whose lives depend upon those same advances; if all these advances in materials and information technology aren't improvements, why are you using them, exactly?

The problem in this thread is the same as I always find in this forum; very few people who post in the philosophy of science forum have any significant grasp of modern science. Of course science might seem to be at a standstill if you don't know anything about what research is done and where. So let's get a few things straight.

First, physics. Almost no one works on string theory. It keeps coming up in this thread as if physics has some need for string theory to advance to advance itself. It does not. Very little effort is placed in string theory because society and physicists do not generally consider it particularly important. Very few people in the field of science work in cosmology, though this number is may be higher than those in string theory. Whereas the average public person thinks things such as these make up a great deal of physics, they do not.

Materials science, optics and condensed matter physics easily make up the vast majority of physics research. Not suprisingly, these three areas are the ones that have shown vast progress over the past half century, and have the best chance of producing grand things over the next half century. These advances are scientifically fundamental as well as being quite practical; they are both important to scientific knowledge and used by society at the same time.

Beyond that, one must consider the other sciences, which tend to dwarf physics in funding. Whether you like the advances society uses or you don't is NOT part of this discussion, because that has no bearing on whether science has advanced in these areas. I may not like the pharma industry, but they have made vast progress in the past 60 years, and given the amount of pill-popping and money spent on it, it has had a strong effect upon society. You may not like the transportation industry, but advances in the science of metallurgy have transformed it, and our society with it. The tomatoes might taste a little blander, but providing exceedingly cheap food to society is definitely an improvement.

So is it any surprise that people who think string physics makes up some measurable part of the scientific community think that science is at a standstill? It's like being blindfolded at a car race and claiming the cars have stopped moving; claiming the big noise is just an echo.

 

[nevagil]

I bought a reel lawn mower today

It is an old fashion kind without an engine. It is extremely light and easy to push because there is no heavy gas engine on it. But I have to admit, one of the reasons it is so light is that modern technology made some plastics for part of it. I'll probably get a riding lawn mower eventually but I doubt if I'll forget how our countries dependency on gas and oil is costing more than money. When I see people getting cancer living near high technology chemical and oil companies I wonder if science is going forward or is it Mary Shelleys Frankenstein running amok.
Another stick in my kraw is that pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing and advertising than research. When I took neurology in college in the late 1980's it angered me to see companies develop popular selling drugs that were already available instead of real research. I felt diabetes, arthritis, and cancer should of been cured in my lifetime. Instead side effects of new garbage drugs are killing off and robbing seniors.
As a veteran I also question the improvements in weapons, sure it is amazing improved technology but you know what? I am not impressed.
I am impressed at discoveries that were made centuries ago considering how little info and resources they had to work with. Including their shorter lifespans. They amaze me. Electricity, phones, the Earth is round, amazes me. Computers don't amaze me at all.
Regards Gil.

 

[mathwonk]

yoiu are right. one side is development of new technology. another side is wisdom to choose the best technology, new or old. nice post.

wisdom is not any easier to acquire than new ideas.

 

[Locrian]

But I have to admit, one of the reasons it is so light is that modern technology made some plastics for part of it.

Don't forget the aluminum that wouldn't have been a part of it one hundred years ago, or the steel alloys that wouldn't last 1/100th the amount of time 100 years ago. It should be no surprise you are not impressed by these things, given what you don't know about them. This is a common theme in threads in this forum.

 

[nevagil]

I have had more intelligent conversations in bars

No one in a bar would seriously say I don't know about aluminum or new steel refinements unless they really drank too much. That is a pathetic statement. And by the way I have worked in steel mills and have had more intelligent conversations there.
One reason this so-called modern message board doesn't impress me as a marvel of new science is that it becomes more about cheap debates and personal insults than getting to the truth and new ideas. A bar has the advantage of allowing one to SEE the body language of the person talking, and HEAR the tone of the person speaking, if the person slurs words or speaks too fast then one can assume booze or stimulents is affecting his judgement That can't be done here so in that regard this is less advanced than a bar conversation, even a phone conversation, and even a written letter that shows handwriting clues.
All of you are entitled to your opinions, but for me I am impressed by the discoveries in science done centuries ago and not the new refinements of old discoveries.

 

[X-43D]

In the broad scheme of the universe, our science barely scratches the surface.

Astrophysics and Cosmology are some of the quickest growing fields of science in the last 25 years. Observations today are at a level of accuracy undreamed of just 10 years ago.

Thanks to this level of observational accuracy, we are sure that about 95% of the universe is exotic, totally unknown, matter. Not made of protons and electrons, not found on the periodic table.

Despite the fact that the universe is primarily made of exotic matter, particle physicisist throw around the words "theory of everything" as if they are ven close.

I agree. Most of the universe is made of particles which cannot be observed with current technology. Also currently we don't have the technology to predict an electron's behavior but according to Michio Kaku in the next 2000 years or so humans will have the technology to reach the final limit.

 

[russ_watters]

Also currently we don't have the technology to predict an electron's behavior but according to Michio Kaku in the next 2000 years or so humans will have the technology to reach the final limit.

Since current theory holds (quite well) that an electron doesn't have a position, our inability to predict it isn't much of a problem.

 

[X-43D]

Since current theory holds (quite well) that an electron doesn't have a position, our inability to predict it isn't much of a problem.

If my understanding of the HUP is correct then what current theory says is that in order to make a measurement, you must have an interaction. Any interaction will change the momentum and position of the particle you're trying to measure. IOW, if we bounce a photon off of an electron, the electron will recoil, changing its position and momentum and we can only gain a limited amount of information.

The HUP drops out of the mathematics - position and momentum wave functions are Fourier transforms of each other (as are energy and time).

 

[reasonmclucus]

Good point. Technology of the last 50 years has basically involved refinements of the first half of the 20th Century. Rockets, computers, jet engines, transistors were invented 50 years ago. Knowledge of DNA's structure was determined 50 years ago.

Part of the problem may be the media. There is a medical revolution going on in regenerative medicine, but the media are concentrating on embryonic research which is unlikely to be useful for another decade, if ever.

http://www.businessweek.com/1998/30/b3588001.htm

A broader problem may be that science is becoming less empirical and more like a religion. There is a tendency to treat concepts as truths that must be accepted without question. For example, climate isn't treated by most climatologists as a complex and chaotic system, but as a very simple system controlled by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Sure there are little refinements like credit cards and computers envolving abit from TVs and phones. But nothing new or great.
In 1973 my dad died of colon cancer and doctors said cancer would be cured within 10 years. Then in 1980's doctors again said cancer would be cured by 1990. Now in 2005 millons and millons are spent with just talk and more promises and hope. Penicillin was the only big creation in the past century or so.
Smart people are no smarter, Wars are just as common, Secrets of the universe are no closer or further away.
If Strings or whatever are proved nothing will change. It is like when gravity was proved, nothing changed. People still fell out of trees and off cliffs.
I still plant tomato seeds in the ground, fertilize them with animal crap, water them, and chase away the rabbits and raccoons, - just like centuries ago.
Regards, Gil of www.surrealcity.com

MOre people are being successfully treated for cancer than 30 years ago. Cancer treatment is one area where there is a major change. Cancer researchers are attempting to move away from the old practice of mass medicine of one treatment fits all to treatments based on the individual patient's unique biology.

 

[Canute]

Hmm. I keep meaning to check on the pre-scientific incidence of cancer. It seems to me that science spends a lot of time and energy solving problems that it has caused and calling this progress.

On the general issue, it would be difficult to argue that in the area of new technology science is not continuing to advance, in the sense that there is more technology and it is more complex. But to argue that this shows that science as a whole is advancing seems equivalent to arguing that science is just about developing new technology. Of course, increasingly this is the case, and it is certainly the reason that most scientists have jobs, and the main justification for calling science useful.

But if science is about understanding reality better then it seems to me debatable whether it has made any progress for quite a while, at least since Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger and the rest. Nature remains as incomprehensible today as it was for Feynman. Indeed, nobody who has ever claimed to find reality comprehensible has been a scientist.

As for whether technological progress is a good thing or not, it seems pretty obvious to many people that it isn't. I note that researchers in the UK have recently concluded that the current generation of young people will be the first in history that can be predicted to have a shorter lifespan than their parents. It seems to me that scientists take a rather parochial view of what constitutes progress.

But I wouldn't want to be labelled as completely anti-science. The scientific method is obviously a good one for its purpose, and the clarity and rigour demanded in science can only be a good thing. One can only admire the astonishing intellectual achievements and abilities of the great scientists, even if one disagrees with their assumptions. And although not much of note has happened recently, at least not from the perspective of a non-scientist, the disproof of naive realism by physicists must be counted such a major and paradigm-shaking advance that perhaps researchers deserve a period of relative stability in which to digest the consequences before shaking it again. Perhaps M-theory constitues a potential advance, even if it's not quite one yet.

But it seems unlikely that science, M-theory or not, will ever answer any metaphysical questions given its current methods and assumptions, and I suspect that this is probably the only development that everyone, whatever their other views, would have to agree constituted progress.