Is science slowing to a standstill ?

[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.

 

[Locrian]

If my understanding of the HUP is correct

It isn't.

We have extensive abilities to predict electron behavior. Look around you; your life is dependant on our ability to do so.

 

[Locrian]

No one in a bar would seriously say I don't know about aluminum or new steel refinements unless they really drank too much.

Sure I would, even sober. If you would like to start a thread called "what impresses nevagil," then your statements would have a lot of value. As is, in a thread about whether science has come to a standstill, it seems you just aren't aware of what advances have occured.

Though you don't hesitate to make use of them.

 

[Locrian]

Technology of the last 50 years has basically involved refinements of the first half of the 20th Century.

This is statement relies on a devious sort of reasoning. By relagating away important advances in areas such as materials and condensed matter physics to the category of "refinements" you might make this case. However, considering these advances have produced new theory, have earned nobel prizes, and have proven scientifically and technologically useful, I do not see how you could make an argument like that.

On the contrary, I ask anyone to make a case against the following statement: advances in condesnsed matter physics in the past 25 years are at least as important scientifically as any advanced in the 50 years before that.

Science hasn't slowed so much as public education of science has.

 

[reasonmclucus]

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.

.

If anything science may be going backwards in terms of understanding. Perhaps we have too many who call themselves scientists who would perhaps be better described as technicians. They prefer to teach what they learned instead of attempting to learn something new.

My high school chemistry teacher in the early 60's told us about 3 theories to explain the electron. I wonder if today's teachers suggest that there are alternative views or if they teach that there is one accepted explanation that everyone must accept.

There is too much acceptance today of simplistic 19th Century theories like greenhouse gases and evolution. The latter believe hampers biological theory by suggesting that biology just happens from random changes rather than encouraging development of theories that would deal with cause and effect relationships with exposure to specific chemicals, etc. causing changes.

 

[mathwonk]

the science i am doing seems to go slower every year i get older. I think its because I went from working 15- 20 hours a day, gradually down to 0 - 4. sometimes i even think chewing the fat on this forum accomplishes less than one might hope. just imagine the science someone might have done during the time spent to write 1,000 posts! of course one hopes the young talents one is occasionally helping here may perhaps do the science one no longer does oneself. so maybe this forum is actually helping the advance of science instead of just arguing about it.

 

[cragwolf]

I found the following article relevant to this thread:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616

 

[reasonmclucus]

I found the following article relevant to this thread:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616

Thanks for the link. The patent argument may be even stronger than the author suggests considering what the U.S. Patent office is giving patents for these days, including one click shopping at amazon.com.

 

[nameta9]

The link states:

"Nevertheless, the point at which an extrapolation of his global innovation curve hits zero suggests we have already made 85 per cent of the technologies that are economically feasible."

But no one is considering what will happen when we start modifying our own brains and neural circuits! Then we will see the world and our experiences in very different ways.

It may well be true that there is not much more we can do as far as manipulating matter (look how hard it is to make a fusion generator). So the only place that will be left to go is in computer reality "simulations " and modification of our own minds by directly manipulating our neuron circuits or implanting chips in our minds.

By the way, if we ever do find out how to create a nucleare fusion energy generator, then we may really be able to mainpulate matter to any degree as we would then have an unlimited supply of virtually free energy and could create any degree of high energies to even manipulate matter at the quark level actually creating any number of atoms we want of any element.

 

[oldtobor]

May I add that the real problems today are truly "systems" problems: traffic jams, economic-logistic organizations, work organizations, in short the really big problems today are mostly "political- cultural" or how to really advance the way our societies are organized and operate. We just can't advance in any way whatsovever how our societies work and operate. We are good at bombing with "stealth" bombers though...

 

[nameta9]

From the point of view of natural/biological evolution we are within a "singularity" since the rate of change that man is imposing on matter is orders of magnitudes faster than natural evolution ever was. Matter evolved from carbon atoms to man and in lightning speed man is continuing the evolution by introducing ever diverse materials and manipulation of matter beyond anything natural evolution could ever do in such a short time.

 

[DM]

It is often said an average worker now makes less money than in 1970 (example of going backwards) and it seems the working hours are longer (example of going backwards).

These are encumbrances in motion. We are talking about evolved economic markets demanding more of a country and thereby creating globalization in order to tackle world debt and economical instabilities, especially now in richer countries such as America with the decline of the dollar.

Science may have a limit, but matter may not. Imagine that science does stop evolving and reaches a limit where it cannot manipulate matter any further. This could be for economical, social, political or cultural reasons.

It’s almost impossible and if not totally impossible for science to stop and hence halting the production of matter alongside it. I must however concur with you when you state, with the exclusion of referring to possibility (could), that this is due to economical, social, political or cultural reasons. This IS because of the reasons you’ve mentioned.

It’s in my opinion to think that in postulating science and the possibility of stopping matter through it, as being quite bold. I further believe that it is infinite, science will always evolve, with or without restrictions.

 

[Happeh]

Yes science is going backwards. IMHO, science is being repressed for political reasons

I feel that some political person has looked into the future and seen that the need for scientific people is very small. Science jobs can be high paying and high status jobs. This means that these types of jobs must be reserved for the members of the elite. Their sons and daughters and their chosen lackeys.

In Britian, the country is closing hard science departments in many colleges. It is something of a scandal amongst the academics in Britain. They feel they are giving away any possibility of British leadership in the sciences.

Simultaneously, science has been the victim of a silent PR campaign or perhaps the absence of a PR campaign. In the 50's and 60's and 70's, being a scientific person was a respected role to play in society. The TV and society in general talked about the space scientist and the defense engineers making missiles or nuclear naval vessels, etc. Today, science people are depicted as people with social or psychological problems. Unable to mesh in normal society, they take refuge in science. They are ignored until needed to solve a problem. Once the problem is fixed they recede into the background again to be ignored again.

What young person is going to go thru the necessary work to be a scientist only to be rewarded with derision or disrespect from the majority of the members of society? Today's society shows children that if they are singers or dancers or actors, or sports stars, then they will be popular, have money, be normal.

Another political reason is power. Science is power. If you look into military tactics, you would be chilled to discover that educated people are targets. They are the people who rebuild the society during and after war. Therefore they must die. You can see this in action right this minute in Iraq. In Iraq there has been a campaign of murders of scientists and academics across the country. If the death squads responsible can kill or force into exile all educated Iraqis, the remaining uneducated people will be an easy to control captive populace. They need the conquerers to rebuild the country because all the native intelligent people have been murdered or frightened out of the country.

The government, beginning around the Reagan era, began to actively repress knowledge that is available. When I was younger, I could go to the library and check out books on rocket propulsion, rocket nozzle design, chemical explosive formulas, drug formulas...just about anything you could think of. Now if you go to the library, it will probably be closed. If it is open, the book selection is miniscule. If the book selection is large, there will be large and obvious gaps in the knowledge that is available.

I can think of some research that was supressed for purely political reasons. There was a study done to determine the genetics of Isrealis, Palestinians and other Arabs I think it was. The report showed that Israelis were about 96 percent or maybe higher genetically similar to Arab or Palestinian people. This would not serve the goals of Israeli politics so the report was supressed.

It is almost always in the political interest to repress scientific innovation. Ben Bova wrote a great book about e books. This was before e books were mainstream. His book focused on the idea that e books would destroy the lumber, paper mill and publishing industries. Therefore, these industries would do anything to stop the scientific innovation of e books. No matter how helpful the technology was to society or the environment. The only thing important was profits and the possible political fallout of people losing their jobs taking their frustration out on the politicians currently in office.

 

[DM]

I must also add that matter produced by the applications of science is catalysed by world events. With analysis, science gains little with the human interest when opposed to pressurised events, a quintessence of the latter is events that have occurred in the past, i.e World wars. Not only governments have to fund inventions and innovations in such events, but they're also compelled to apply pressure to all working personnel in order to succeed in viability. I infer that great emphasis goes towards the funding, I feel there are boundaries when devising major scientific applications in universities and other institutions when there's no support. Unless someone makes colossal endowments towards these scientific institutions, governments will always restrict the amount of matter that science is able to generate via the world of politics and economics.

 

[oldtobor]

From the point of view of natural/biological evolution we are within a "singularity" since the rate of change that man is imposing on matter is orders of magnitudes faster than natural evolution ever was. Matter evolved from carbon atoms to man and in lightning speed man is continuing the evolution by introducing ever diverse materials and manipulation of matter beyond anything natural evolution could ever do in such a short time.

Does this mean that the universe evolves and reaches a point where matter can achieve a maximum capability to manipulate itself arbitrarily ? It starts off with biological evolution and then through man , intelligence, science matter ends up manipulating "itself" to any degree ? Or maybe the end point of any kind of evolution is a state where matter achieves it's maximum awareness/manipulability.

 

[mathwonk]

if all of us stopped posting on here and started doing science, would we change the course of science?

 

[nameta9]

How do you "do science" ? This is science. Investigation of all with all instruments including philosophy/art/religion etc.

Anyways there are thousands of engineers, mathematician, physicists who "do" a lot of science all over the world all the time. They often don't look at the larger picture of how what they "do" is related to everything else, what the larger trends are or even if they are on a completely wrong track.

 

[reasonmclucus]

.

In Britian, the country is closing hard science departments in many colleges. It is something of a scandal amongst the academics in Britain. They feel they are giving away any possibility of British leadership in the sciences.

Simultaneously, science has been the victim of a silent PR campaign or perhaps the absence of a PR campaign. In the 50's and 60's and 70's, being a scientific person was a respected role to play in society. The TV and society in general talked about the space scientist and the defense engineers making missiles or nuclear naval vessels, etc. Today, science people are depicted as people with social or psychological problems. Unable to mesh in normal society, they take refuge in science. They are ignored until needed to solve a problem. Once the problem is fixed they recede into the background again to be ignored again.

What young person is going to go thru the necessary work to be a scientist only to be rewarded with derision or disrespect from the majority of the members of society? Today's society shows children that if they are singers or dancers or actors, or sports stars, then they will be popular, have money, be normal.

.

Right, scientists are "nerds" or "geeks". Intelligence itself isn't valued. The last three major U.S. presidential candidates Bush, Gore, and Kerry got "gentlemen's C's" in college.

Who is asked to talk about scientific issues? Why celebrities of course. Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagon are the ones asked to talk about medical research. Like many people who don't understand science they are easily taken in by those who claim that they can cure just about any dread disease you can name if they can only get the money.

I'm not a biologist, but I know enough to be automatically suspicious of anyone claiming to be able to cure anything. The more diseases they claim they can cure, the more likely they are related to Donald Duck.

Real scientists are finding more and more disorders they can treat with adult stem cells, but the media and its celebrities, are claiming that embroyic research offers the "most promising" approach to treating just about everything. Stem cell research in general doesn't have nearly as much "promise" as nutrition research. Immune research is also potentially more important than stem cell research.

 

[reasonmclucus]

I must also add that matter produced by the applications of science is catalysed by world events. With analysis, science gains little with the human interest when opposed to pressurised events, a quintessence of the latter is events that have occurred in the past, i.e World wars. Not only governments have to fund inventions and innovations in such events, but they're also compelled to apply pressure to all working personnel in order to succeed in viability. I infer that great emphasis goes towards the funding, I feel there are boundaries when devising major scientific applications in universities and other institutions when there's no support. Unless someone makes colossal endowments towards these scientific institutions, governments will always restrict the amount of matter that science is able to generate via the world of politics and economics.

Good point. And funding is warping science, particularly medical research. Politicians think that successful research is just a matter of how much money is spent. Throw a billion at a problem and it will be solved faster. They ignore the fact that for any disorder there are only a limited number of researchers who are actually have the specialized knowledge necessary to pursue that particular research.

Researchers who want funding feel they have to portray their research as being relevant even though it might only have a marginal connection to the medical problem. The basic research that would help tie the vast amount of medical research together has little chance of getting funding.

A few years ago politicians were wanting to spend billions on AIDS research. Now they trying to see how much they can throw at embryonic cell research.

This approach can divert researchers from areas where they are most likely to provide new knowledge to areas where they will be more likely to duplicate the research of others. Most specialized areas of medical research probably cannot handle more than $100 million or so without wasting money and diverting researchers from areas where they could actually contribute something.

 

[Locrian]

On the contrary, I ask anyone to make a case against the following statement: advances in condesnsed matter physics in the past 25 years are at least as important scientifically as any advanced in the 50 years before that.

I find it interesting that no one has taken any argument with my claim. It's amusing how sure everyone is that science is standing still, and yet how little argument they make against competing claims. Am I missing someone's post, or are people only interested in making statements, and not rationalizing or defending them?

Here, I'll up the ante: Not only is science not slowed down, but it is moving faster than ever before. This is due to the fact that there are more scientists working on scientific problems than ever before, and their methods of communication, data storage, data retrieval and data analysis are better than ever before.

As evidence I note the fact that science is producing more papers about more subjects in more fields than at any time in history. See recent nobel prizes, such as Laughlin, that are for fundamental, truly deep scientific work that has changed the face of what humanity knows.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Science is progressing quickly in many areas. They just don't happen to be ones people write mediocre science-for-the-public books about.

Here, have a look see: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c0/fig00-08.htm

For slowing to a standstill, scientists sure are finding an awful lot to study, and having an awful lot of progress worth reporting...

 

[reasonmclucus]

Here, I'll up the ante: Not only is science not slowed down, but it is moving faster than ever before. This is due to the fact that there are more scientists working on scientific problems than ever before, and their methods of communication, data storage, data retrieval and data analysis are better than ever before.

As evidence I note the fact that science is producing more papers about more subjects in more fields than at any time in history.

Having more scientists working and producing more papers doesn't necessarily mean science is actually going anywhere.

Certainly there are some advances, but do they match the rate of discovery of the early 20th Century with the work of Einstein and Bohr in physics? Or are they of the same caliber?

Much of science is still dominated by simplistic 19th Century ideas like Darwinian evolution. In fact the big debate over the origin of life is little changed since Darwin. The only change is the idea of Intelligent Design which suggests that biological life is too sophisticated to have developed without the aid of an intelligence. However, advocates of I.D. are not providing an explanation of how such an intelligence might have produced biological life.

Some claim that Earth can be treated like a "black body" which is a linear concept. The idea of an object that simply absorbs and radiates energy only applies to a rock in a vacuum. Any situation with a planet surrounded by transparent gases is too chaotic to be explained by such a concept.

Chaos theory is one major contribution of late 20th Century scientists, but some physicists are still preoccupied with attempting to explain everything in terms of "quanta". At the macro level, the situation is too complex to be explained by such concepts.

 

[cragwolf]

Here, I'll up the ante: Not only is science not slowed down, but it is moving faster than ever before. This is due to the fact that there are more scientists working on scientific problems than ever before, and their methods of communication, data storage, data retrieval and data analysis are better than ever before.

Is it true that science has not slowed down, but is moving faster than ever before? This is a problem of perspective. What do you look at, the development of fundamental laws of nature such as relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, or the number of papers produced per year? What is more fundamental, a theory describing the behaviour of electrons in strong magnetic fields, or a theory describing the intrinsic nature of gravity or the strong interaction? When people claim that there have been no cornerstone developments in physics since the rise of QCD in the 60's and 70's, do you think they count papers or do you think they have some other way of estimating progress? I can see merit on both sides of the argument (which you can characterise as fence-sitting if you like).

 

[Locrian]

Is it true that science has not slowed down, but is moving faster than ever before? What do you look at, the development of fundamental laws of nature such as relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, or the number of papers produced per year?

You look at both.

What is more fundamental, a theory describing the behaviour of electrons in strong magnetic fields, or a theory describing the intrinsic nature of gravity or the strong interaction?

They are equally fundamental. Of course, no one spends any time looking at just the behaviour of electrons in strong magnetic fields anymore, so I'm not sure what comparison you think you are making.

When people claim that there have been no cornerstone developments in physics since the rise of QCD in the 60's and 70's, do you think they count papers or do you think they have some other way of estimating progress?

You tell me. You haven't made an argument that there haven't been deep, important scientific revolutions in the past 25 years, so I have nothing to work against. I'll tell you, however, that anyone who dismisses the findings in physics as not both important and fundamental are wrong. Show me one who actually knows enough to make an argument and I'll show you all the ways they are wrong.

 

[Locrian]

Having more scientists working and producing more papers doesn't necessarily mean science is actually going anywhere.

No, but having more sciences producing more papers on fundamental physical concepts - and making breakthroughs on them - does.

Much of science is still dominated by simplistic 19th Century ideas like Darwinian evolution. In fact the big debate over the origin of life is little changed since Darwin.

This is completely untrue. You show a marked lack of understanding of modern theory of evolution. While it certainly contains darwin's core ideas, it has progressed greatly and, thanks to numerous scientific advances, has greatly increased the scope of its theory. The discovery of DNA alone is enough to mark modern theory of evolution as changed from Darwins days; how anyone could overlook such obvious advances is beyond me.

Some claim that Earth can be treated like a "black body" which is a linear concept.

It isn't linear. Look at the equation, for goodness sake.

Chaos theory is one major contribution of late 20th Century scientists, but some physicists are still preoccupied with attempting to explain everything in terms of "quanta". At the macro level, the situation is too complex to be explained by such concepts.

What? What does chaos theory have to do with using quantum theory? How familiar are you with these? Give examples of the above statement.

Is there no one in this thread who knows enough about modern science to make a reasonable argument?

 

[Locrian]

The reason why no one here can make a reasonable case for this "science slowing down" business is because the entire "feeling" is based off an unjustifiable value judgement. Those defending this slowing down idea have judged certain historical findings to be good, and most or all modern scientific studies to be not as good.

I would just love to hear how they justify this value judgement. Studies in condensed matter have produced new physical models that weren't known before, and can't be formulated from old ones. The discovery of the cosmological constant is every bit as powerful, and much more far reaching than Hubbles discovery of redshifting. This discovery has directly affected theoretical physics, high energy physics, and has spurred an entirely new era in cosmological studies. There should be no doubt in anyone's minds that 1999 will be remembered for that finding just as 1905 was remembered for Einstein's work. If only all scientists had fluffy hair and made cute, repeatable quips; then science wouldn't be thought of as standing still as it progresses rapidly forward.

Everyone here seems to be an expert... until asked for specifics. Specifically, why is the discovery of the cosmological constant, the studies in high temperature superconductivity, the advances in materials sciences, the discoveries and lack thereof at LIGO and of neutrino masses - why is the huge landscape of science today so much less valuable than the smaller but still important landscape of the early 20'th century? Every generation works on foundations laid by those before them, but that is no reason to suggest that their work is any less valuable. The fact is that most science done today wasn't even technologically feasible to do back then.

We aren't moving slower, we are moving faster, and in entirely new directions.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Are we comparing apples and oranges by looking at two different aspects of science? For example, in terms of understanding of the basics of atomic physics it would be difficult to match the revolution that occurred a century ago.

In 1896, physics believed that the atom was the smallest particle of matter. It could not be further subdivided and an atom of one element could not be converted to another element through a process they called alchemy. Gas molecules became hotter by absorbing specific wavelengths of light.

In 1897, J.J. Thomson started the revolution by reporting his discovery that atoms actually consisted of smaller charged particles. 20 years later it was known that these charged particles were divided with neutrons and protons in a nucleus and electrons around the nucleus in some fashion. An atom of one element could be converted into an element of another atom through processes called fission and fusion. The absorption of specific wavelengths of light did not make gas molecule hotter. Instead it caused the electrons to move to a higher energy state. The molecule could not absorb radiation of that wavelength until it emitted radiation of the same wavelength.

Refinements occurred later, particularly the discovery that the charged particles were themselves composed of smaller particles.

Perhaps this type discovery cannot be made again because the basics of physical science, other than a Unified Field Theory, are already known. The only thing scientists can do is continue to refine specifics of this knowledge which doesn't attract as much attention outside various specialities the way the discoveries of Einstein and others did. Their may be little potential for any major revolutionary scientific discoveries.

The same may be true for technology. The basic technological things that can be invented, with the possible exception of a transporter or FTL space travel(assuming either is really possible), have been invented. All that can be done is improve these inventions.

Perhaps a human analogy would be useful. For the first 20 years or so humans get taller. Then they stop getting taller and can only become larger by getting wider. Mayhe science is as tall as it can get and can only grow by getting wider.

 

[nameta9]

When we start modifying the minds neural networks, change the way it organizes information, its emotional mental states, new sensory organs, create new forms of consciousness etc. our science today will seem as primitive as a carbon atom is to a civilization.

 

[Chronos]

Look at the computer you are currently using and compare it to the one you had 25 years ago. Hint: you could order one off the net right now that would compare favorably to the best mainframe in existence 25 years ago. That's just one of many examples of how far science has advanced in the last quarter century. Sure, we haven't seen highly publicized, dramatic breakthroughs, like relativity... and perhaps that's because most of the cherries have already been picked. I vote science has advanced more rapidly over the past 25 years than ever in history.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Look at the computer you are currently using and compare it to the one you had 25 years ago. Hint: you could order one off the net right now that would compare favorably to the best mainframe in existence 25 years ago. That's just one of many examples of how far science has advanced in the last quarter century. Sure, we haven't seen highly publicized, dramatic breakthroughs, like relativity... and perhaps that's because most of the cherries have already been picked. I vote science has advanced more rapidly over the past 25 years than ever in history.

This example keeps being brought up as illustrating "how far science has advanced". And I keep asserting that advances in science had nothing to do with it, it was advances in manufacturing technology, with almost no input from current science, that made computers so compact and so cheap.

 

[reasonmclucus]

This example keeps being brought up as illustrating "how far science has advanced". And I keep asserting that advances in science had nothing to do with it, it was advances in manufacturing technology, with almost no input from current science, that made computers so compact and so cheap.

You're right. the basic technology had been developed in the mid-70's. It was only a matter of developing the applications and improving manufacturing technlogy. I remember attending a lecture at the Univ. of Kansas given by the 1st lady of computers Navy Captain Grace Hopper. She brought some of the hardware that would become micro computer components -- hardware that could be held in one hand.


The big changes occurred in the late 70's with development of the 1st micros. For example, in 1975 computer graphics required a mini computer(PDP-11-15 -- if memory is correct) dedicated to producing a 256X256 16 color image along with various video equipment. By 1980 micro computers such as the Commodore 64 were able to produce color images.

The Windows software is basically just a refinement of the software system Apple developed in the 80's.

If science were really going anywhere we should have voice command for all computers with voice synthesizers.

 

[Smurf]

When we start modifying the minds neural networks, change the way it organizes information, its emotional mental states, new sensory organs, create new forms of consciousness etc. our science today will seem as primitive as a carbon atom is to a civilization.

I, for one, hope that science never progresses that far, at least hopefully not in my life time.

 

[Locrian]

Are we comparing apples and oranges by looking at two different aspects of science? For example, in terms of understanding of the basics of atomic physics it would be difficult to match the revolution that occurred a century ago.

I would dissagree. It is true that in the late 19th and early 20th century a great deal of information about physics on that scale was learned. However, that information is a tiny fraction of all that has been learned. In those times they largely spent time understanding the properties of the object itself. This foundation was important, but suprisingly little use in understanding the way matter interacts when closely bound. A great deal of understanding was provided years afterwards, and is continuing at a rapid pace today.

This is just another example of how quickly science is moving right now, that we have so much more information about materials and condensed matter now than we did even 50 years after Thompson made the discoveries you site.

 

[Locrian]

If science were really going anywhere we should have voice command for all computers with voice synthesizers.

I would love to hear you try and make a case for how scientific progress and voice commands on computers are directly related. On the contrary, all the necessary science for voice commanding has been done, and it is merely a technological and economic issue making this more prevalent.

 

[Locrian]

Everyone here seems to be an expert... until asked for specifics. Specifically, why is the discovery of the cosmological constant, the studies in high temperature superconductivity, the advances in materials sciences, the discoveries and lack thereof at LIGO and of neutrino masses - why is the huge landscape of science today so much less valuable than the smaller but still important landscape of the early 20'th century?

Is someone going to step up and respond to the cases I repeatedly make, or did all those supporting this "slowing" of science suddenly find more important things to do?

 

[nameta9]

Is someone going to step up and respond to the cases I repeatedly make, or did all those supporting this "slowing" of science suddenly find more important things to do?

Yes you are most probably right. What my impression and many others here is most likely a "perception" of science slowing in that there are little "spectacular" results. But behind the scenes a lot of science is continuing. It is also hard to pinpoint what "advance" means and referenced to what. Then there are of course deep and hard limits on what can be achieved in science at least up to this point, like fusion energy, there are "economical" limits and science/technology is not making many richer etc. Then of course I myself and many others don't know all the details which are a lot and complex in many areas of science. So I would say you are right. Science in the end is also a greatly "social" endeavor, because it is performed and used according to what intentions it often has ahead of time and how we imagine to use it.

 

[kant]

P1

Science and technolgy are human endavors. They developed along the lines of human need, desire, and even beliefs of the larger society. In my opinion, it is not that there is a foundmental limited to human innovation, but rather "forces"( need, desire, beliefs) in the society that prevent "greater" technological changes on a grand scale. (EX: Private R & D are not in the business of helping humanity, but rather working on the benefit of their shareholders.)...

EX2: i think the whole damn reason the internet became what it is to day is that it charter to the human desire for sex.

P2

science is a damn human endavor, thus it is a subordinate to man, or the science that govern men(social sciences+economic theories)... In many ways, science is like art in this regard.

P3
science is a religion, a philosophy.
science works under a set of assumptions and rules such as 1) the consistency of mathematics is ensured, and the 2) the infinite generalization that nature is simply...etc. It is a religion that give the user the elusion of certainty, and the design of the universe in the mind of god. The endavor of the scientific interprise( or regligious cult) is nothing special than any other endavor of men to understand it environment( religion...)

p4

The complexity of a phenonmen is not important, it is merely a computational problem. a mathematical problem


P5

Ultimatly, at the end of the day, the whole grand idea/philosophy of science and mathematics are a game. There are survent of men to make money, and be as useful and possible.

P6

I have unified any worthy ideas from past, present, and future space-time curve of this thread.

 

[nameta9]

So then, even today with our present technology we could do a lot more. We could create much better computers/operating systems (not monopolies) create excellent public transportation, free working hours and times (from home etc).

The limits are really mostly cultural/economical/social. Much more could be done in all fields with all we have and know but humanity is actually very conservative and very slow to change anything at all. So then in the year 1 billion we may still live exactly as today even though the potential to live differently would be there. In the end science will be economically and culturally limited and bound and probably won't go anywhere else because humanity won't ever change its lifestyle.

I would also add that we may have a truly overly amibitious idea of science/technology thinking that we could do everything. Maybe man can't get much further no matter how hard he tries, because of intrinsic limits in science and technology. Also it could be that natural/biological evolution, which is a completely blind endeavor, is much more powerful than we think and our science will never be able to compete with it.

 

[reasonmclucus]

I would dissagree. It is true that in the late 19th and early 20th century a great deal of information about physics on that scale was learned. However, that information is a tiny fraction of all that has been learned. In those times they largely spent time understanding the properties of the object itself. This foundation was important, but suprisingly little use in understanding the way matter interacts when closely bound. A great deal of understanding was provided years afterwards, and is continuing at a rapid pace today.

This is just another example of how quickly science is moving right now, that we have so much more information about materials and condensed matter now than we did even 50 years after Thompson made the discoveries you site.

My point was about the speed of development of new information. The changes in information I mentioned took place in a 20 year period. It can take that long just to arrange financing, chooose a location and build some physics research facilities such as the tanks used to look for neutrinos, something like the supercollider or space based equipment - with no guarantee that the facility will actually be constructed.

The necessary testing for possible medical treatments may take a decade beyond the time necessary to develop the treatment.

I believe the thread is about the slowing of science rather than the stopping of science. Part of any slowing may be the fact that the more scientists learn the more they discover they don't know.

Biology becomes increasingly complicated as researchers learn more about the cell. The complications of biology can limit the potential value of medical treatment by limiting the number of people who can benefit from specific treatments. This problem is particularly acute in cancer treatment. Treatments that can "cure" some patients' cancers has no impact on the same cancers in other patients.

 

[nameta9]

I believe the thread is about the slowing of science rather than the stopping of science. Part of any slowing may be the fact that the more scientists learn the more they discover they don't know.

So science is a victim of its own success. It constantly increases knowledge/information and therefore there is more and more infromation you need to deal with, there is an ever increasing number of combinations to choose or try out (as in software), there is an ever increasing number of variables, disciplines etc. So its own complexity limits the how fast and how much research can be done. Not to mention evaluating what research is worth it and what research will be fruitful, all the dead ends that research encounters, etc. Extrapolating you could have a slowing down and an eventual stop.

 

[Locrian]

It can take that long just to arrange financing, chooose a location and build some physics research facilities such as the tanks used to look for neutrinos, something like the supercollider or space based equipment - with no guarantee that the facility will actually be constructed.

Very amusing. It does not take 20 years to secure funding and begin research in the vast majority of scientific research. It can take a few years to get a program rolling, but once you do you can begin new areas of research in reasonable periods of time. Most science does not require the equipment you describe, though you may not know this since you are not familiar with modern science.

So this just goes back to what I've been saying; if you don't know what science is being done, then you might erroneously think it is slowing down. Of course, if you know something about it, it actually seems to be speeding up, thanks to faster communication, better availability of other's works, a huge aray of potential studies and vastly superior equipment for the aquisition and anlysis of data. Judging by the amount of quality information produced about the world around us in research journals, we produce more information in any 20 year period now than we ever have before.

I find myself faced with the same ignorant drivel over and over. No one has even tried to argue against the case I've made that science is speeding up, and when they try to make a case it's slowing down they give no reason for thinking that way - they don't even bother to make anything up.

This thread should be retitled: When Pop Science Goes Bad.

 

[Locrian]

So science is a victim of its own success. It constantly increases knowledge/information and therefore there is more and more infromation you need to deal with,

Maybe, but it is also benefactor of its own success. As science has progressed it has been able to make use of the technology that came from its discoveries to make information easier to distribute, organize and process. Do you have any idea what it was like trying to search for specific information in journals in the '70's? Do you have any idea what it is like now?

I love how you toss in the towel when faced with my argument, but merrily repeat the same old lines as soon as reasonmclucus makes an informationless post that agreed with what you used to be arguing. Do you intend to take a stand in this thread?