Is science slowing to a standstill ?

[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?

 

[Locrian]

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.

There have been many spectacular results in the past two decades. I like http://www.ornl.gov/sci/htsc/documents/pdf/SuperconTimeline%202000.pdf myself, but I think cosmic acceleration might be regarded by many as even more important. There are certainly many others.

When someone makes a discovery that completely alters our understanding of the universe and changes nearly 80 years of scientific thinking, I call it spectacular. Under what definition of science wouldn't it be?