Is science slowing to a standstill ?

[nameta9]

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. Yes we may have more "gadgets" but aside from the internet and only a few really new technologies or discoveries, all the hype surrounding science is revealing that it was only hype. Companies and governments spend less and less on basic scientific research, they prefer to create combination products ony to sell more like cell phones with cameras etc.
All the revolutionary applications of computers haven't changed none of the fundamentals of the world, we still need gas to go around etc.

It may be in general that the human mind is actually very limited in how much it can really manipulate matter. Maybe the mind sees reality through a false grid that can rarely let it really manipulate past a certain complexity or set of interactions matter in general. We still cannot even create a simple protein from scratch even though the first experiments were started in the early 50s,
We have no idea how even 2 or 3 chemical reactions in the cells interact etc

Progress is getting slower and slower. Artificial intelligence is just about where it was 30 years ago, and the chemical reactions circuits even in the simplest cells are barely understood.

It may be that this is the most we will ever get; passenger jet planes at 800km/h, (concorde failed economically). Windows PCs with lots of pretty pictures and mpeg films, cars that will never fly etc. Maybe in the year 5,000,000 the world will look just like it is now without ever having progressed much more.

It could very well be that our mind doesn't have the instruments to go any further, that maybe our use of logic and/or mathematics is flawed past a certain point. Who knows... maybe there are other instruments and science shouldn't use math...

Bottom line: science can invent the theory of everything with all the formulas, particles, experiments and know everything, but the possibility to "manipulate" matter (applied science ) may just remain limited even though we may end up knowing everything. Knowledge without the possibility of manipulation may just end up being an elegant philosophy.

I also think there are very strong ECONOMICAL - SOCIAL - CULTURAL - POLITICAL forces that greatly limit how and what we manipulate, alongside with the fact that we may never be able to reach any greater degree of manipulation. We went to the moon in 1969 and are still having a hard time getting back for example. In the same time spand it is hyped that our computers are a million times better.


The question is very simple. I have a feeling that science is slowing down and can eventually just stop. Here I mean especially applied science / technology since as I said science as knowledge can expand forever but its practical applications may not. Knowledge is not the question, it is how much we can manipulate matter to our desires. There are 2 cases:

1) we can't manipulate past a certain point: time travel is not possible, eternal life is not possible, visiting other stars is not possible, infinite pleasure is not possible etc.

2) we can manipulate matter to any extent. All the above and more is possible.

If the case is 1 then this means there are some fundamental limits in our mind as to how we understand and manipulate matter, if the case is 2 the sky is the limit.

From the past decades everything is pointing to the case 1: we can't manipulate past a certain point.

I would say that the fundamental physical limits are probably not important because before reaching those limits we could create perfect simulated and virtual realities hooked up to our brains capable of simulating everything conceivable, robots that are capable of carrying out all the work there is to do, 100 % control over all our biology, cell chemistry, mind circuits, and hundreds of other extremely perfected technologies to achieve anything etc. I don't think we will run into "physical" limits but into conceptual-logic-scientific limits in our understanding and capability to manipulate matter.

 

[SpaceTiger]

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. Yes we may have more "gadgets" but aside from the internet and only a few really new technologies or discoveries, all the hype surrounding science is revealing that it was only hype.

It's interesting to me that you dismiss the internet as being so trivial. I honestly can't imagine a world without it and it's fair to say that it plays a role in the majority of my life in one way or another. The same is true for most of the people I know. There are certainly walks of life in which its influence is less, but that's true of any technology.

The same is true of computers in general. Even without the internet, they've played a huge role in my life, including both work and entertainment.

Companies and governments spend less and less on basic scientific research, they prefer to create combination products ony to sell more like cell phones with cameras etc.
All the revolutionary applications of computers haven't changed none of the fundamentals of the world, we still need gas to go around etc.

I'm curious what you view as "fundamental" and why you think it should be changed by science.

It may be in general that the human mind is actually very limited in how much it can really manipulate matter. Maybe the mind sees reality through a false grid that can rarely let it really manipulate past a certain complexity or set of interactions matter in general. We still cannot even create a simple protein from scratch even though the first experiments were started in the early 50s,
We have no idea how even 2 or 3 chemical reactions in the cells interact etc

There may be some truth to this and I suspect that Physics is getting more difficult as it gets more abstract and distant from everyday experience. There are factors working in the other direction, however, including technology and the increase in the raw number of scientists. I think logic can take us a lot further yet, but the road is going to keep getting rougher.

Progress is getting slower and slower. Artificial intelligence is just about where it was 30 years ago, and the chemical reactions circuits even in the simplest cells are barely understood.

You're very selective in the things you talk about and I would really like to see some more sweeping proof of your claims of the slowing of scientific advancement. The advent of computers has been of little help in artificial intelligence because the standard design for a computer is not meant for that sort of thing. Rather, computers are meant to be fancy calculators that produce predictable results. Artificial intelligence has been slow developing, but what about cryptography, genetic mapping, and data handling? Do you think the Sloan Digital Sky Survey would have been possible without computers?

It may be that this is the most we will ever get; passenger jet planes at 800km/h, (concorde failed economically). Windows PCs with lots of pretty pictures and mpeg films, cars that will never fly etc. Maybe in the year 5,000,000 the world will look just like it is now without ever having progressed much more.

Planes and cars haven't developed mainly because there are physical limitations, not because we don't understand them. I wouldn't expect a boom in these areas until we can cheaply launch people into orbit and/or we can get fusion to work. Both of these things will happen eventually. You have to understand that science isn't on call; that is, we can only do those things that are reasonable within nature's bounds.

Bottom line: science can invent the theory of everything with all the formulas, particles, experiments and know everything, but the possibility to "manipulate" matter (applied science ) may just remain limited even though we may end up knowing everything. Knowledge without the possibility of manipulation may just end up being an elegant philosophy.

That's true, of course. It always has been, but increased understanding does open up new possibilities, even if it's not always what you were expecting.

I also think there are very strong ECONOMICAL - SOCIAL - CULTURAL - POLITICAL forces that greatly limit how and what we manipulate, alongside with the fact that we may never be able to reach any greater degree of manipulation. We went to the moon in 1969 and are still having a hard time getting back for example. In the same time spand it is hyped that our computers are a million times better.

Computers are not the primary issue in going to the moon, so advancement in that area doesn't help much. You're right, though, that those things do impact our development. Again, this has always been true.

1) we can't manipulate past a certain point: time travel is not possible, eternal life is not possible, visiting other stars is not possible, infinite pleasure is not possible etc.

2) we can manipulate matter to any extent. All the above and more is possible.

There will certainly be limitations, but we're not yet in a position to be sure if the ones you mentioned are examples of such limitations. I think infinite pleasure is out of the question, but I'm not even really sure what that means.

 

[hypnagogue]

But, nameta9, increasing knowledge of how the world works allows us to manipulate matter more cheaply and effectively at all scales of nature, does it not? So if you agree that our knowledge of nature can grow arbitrarily large, what is to stop us from building better machines, cheaper machines, more delicate and refined machines, more massive and powerful machines, etc., to manipulate matter in ways that are currently impossible (or merely impractical)? In particular, if you want to just talk about our ability to manipulate matter, it seems you're gravely underestimating the huge impact nanotechnology will have, likely not too long from now.

For an extended argument diametrically opposed to that of the original poster, see http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0134.html?m%3D1 by Ray Kurzweil.

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

 

[nameta9]

You misunderstood what I wrote: the internet IS an example of a big discovery/application along with only a few others. Companies and governments worldwide all and all have a few trillion dollars at hand (and they could just create more debt if it was worthwhile) and yet very little of that money is really used for technology and research at all let alone basic research. Basic research would mean trying to understand all the chemical circuits in cells, AI research, truly automatic factory implementations, etc. That money just kind of sits around in banks waiting for some kind of great "return on investment" that is harder and harder to identify (aside from lending some to the poorer and asking large interests).

Fusion energy seems to be out of reach and yet it has been studied for years for example. How do you envision the world in the year 5,000,000 ?

 

[nameta9]

Planes and cars haven't developed mainly because there are physical limitations, not because we don't understand them. I wouldn't expect a boom in these areas until we can cheaply launch people into orbit and/or we can get fusion to work. Both of these things will happen eventually. You have to understand that science isn't on call; that is, we can only do those things that are reasonable within nature's bounds.
means.

reasonable within a society's ECONOMICAL-POLITICAL-CULTURAL bounds.

 

[SpaceTiger]

You misunderstood what I wrote: the internet IS an example of a big discovery/application along with only a few others. Companies and governments worldwide all and all have a few trillion dollars at hand (and they could just create more debt if it was worthwhile) and yet very little of that money is really used for technology and research at all let alone basic research.

Most academic research is done through the universities and universities are as active as ever (probably more so). Why would you expect companies to be the ones breaking new ground in this area?

Fusion energy seems to be out of reach and yet it has been studied for years for example. How do you envision the world in the year 5,000,000 ?

Not to be overly pessimistic, but I think humans will be long gone by then. However, if they're not, fusion will likely be an ancient historical note. Even with modern physics, we can envision more efficient means of energy generation (including matter-antimatter collisions and black holes).

 

[nameta9]

I would expect companies and governments to invest heavily into applied science if they believed it would have any fundamental effect. They have cash and don't know what to do with it except buy and sell companies between each other and try to skim off some profit from the various monkey transactions (just look at the crappy hp mergers etc.).
If they, with their army of technician and scientists knew that applied science could be used to create new results, they would definitely invest in it. They don't so that means they don't expect miracles of science anymore.

I think what is also happening is an increase of the complexity of combinations in technology that slow everything down. Too much "new" information, new software, tools etc. too many combinations that in the end don't really add up to much.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I would expect companies and governments to invest heavily into applied science if they believed it would have any fundamental effect. They have cash and don't know what to do with it except buy and sell companies between each other and try to skim off some profit from the various monkey transactions (just look at the crappy hp mergers etc.).
If they, with their army of technician and scientists knew that applied science could be used to create new results, they would definitely invest in it. They don't so that means they don't expect miracles of science anymore.

The problem with doing new science through business is that it's an extremely inefficient use of money. Most scientific research that's done does not return anything profitable, so I'm guessing that they would prefer to let the academics worry about it and then jump on advances that appear to be useful. A good example of this is Silicon Valley. It would have been inefficient for a company to spend a lot of money researching the original invention and development of computers, but once the basic technology is in place, it becomes very profitable to run with it, developing smaller and faster versions of the same thing.

The same thing will likely happen with other "booms" in the future. If fusion is ever worked out by the academics, I suspect the business world will jump on it and start making it cheaper and more efficient. It all depends on what you're trying to sell. I'd be curious to see a reference for the figures you're citing, as well as a graph of its dependence on time.

 

[nameta9]

Mine is just an impression. One good test though is this:

Why hasn't the completely automatic factory come to age ?

That depends mostly on computers (not like the moon) but we still have factories all over the world run by low paid workers. After many decades of hype about automatic factories, it seems that some are even moving out the robots and hiring cheaper workers.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Why hasn't the completely automatic factory come to age ?

Lack of AI and the fact that it's cheaper to pay third-world workers than it is to buy and maintain fancy machines.

 

[nameta9]

So there you go! All the talk of computers being a "million" times faster and cheaper ends up being HYPE on a practical level. And by the way, you don't need artificial intelligence to run a factory, just well tuned robots for very well tuned tasks. I think the japanese (and GM) studied this alot, but it seems that you can't really do it. HYPE demonstrated!

 

[selfAdjoint]

So there you go! All the talk of computers being a "million" times faster and cheaper ends up being HYPE on a practical level. And by the way, you don't need artificial intelligence to run a factory, just well tuned robots for very well tuned tasks. I think the japanese (and GM) studied this alot, but it seems that you can't really do it. HYPE demonstrated!

And Deep Blue beating Karpov? That was just hype too?

As for your idea on factory automation, it's just uninformed. I've been there, and the reason we don't have 24-7 systems today is that they don't know how to make the programs respond creatively to the unexpected. I have the greatest respect for the people that have developed systems that can run unattended for even a little while.

 

[SpaceTiger]

So there you go! All the talk of computers being a "million" times faster and cheaper ends up being HYPE on a practical level. And by the way, you don't need artificial intelligence to run a factory, just well tuned robots for very well tuned tasks. I think the japanese (and GM) studied this alot, but it seems that you can't really do it. HYPE demonstrated!

I suggest you study up on the topic of artificial intelligence, as you don't seem to understand why conventional computers perform poorly in that arena, nor do you seem to understand their benefits in other arenas.

 

[cragwolf]

I think the viewpoint of nameta9 is very refreshing and is a good antidote to the fantasies of star trek nerds who envision that almost anything is possible as long as you give it a fancy name. The fact is that a lot of the hopes we had of technology and science in 1950's and 1960's have not come to fruition. Robots in every house that do all the household chores for you? No. Fusion reactors? No. Settlements on the moon or other planets? No. Controlling and predicting the weather? No. Artificial intelligence near, at or beyond the level of human intelligence? No. Synthesising life from non-life? No. A quantum theory of gravity? No. On the other hand, there has been a lot of development in some fields like biotechnology, computer technology and materials science. But overall, nothing like the technological explosion that occurred in the first half or two-thirds of the 20th century.

The only lesson that the past can teach you about the future is that the future is unpredictable, not that technology and science will continue to advance at an ever-increasing or exponential pace. So when thinking about the future we need to think about all the scenarios, including regression. We need to consider the following possibilities:

1) Physics may not progress much beyond what we have now. For example, the problem of creating a quantum theory of gravity may lie unresolved forever because it might be impossible to test it in the vigorous way we tested quantum mechanics and relativity, and physics simply does not progress without the firm and guiding hand of experiment.

2) Even if we do create a successful "theory of everything", that does not immediately translate to being able to create any technology we like or have unlimited control over nature. There will, for instance, remain the problem of explaining, predicting and controlling emergent phenomena. For example, we know the fundamental physics behind weather and climate, but we are barely any closer to predicting and controlling them then we were 50 years ago.

3) There are length scales, energy scales and other technology limits that will always be beyond the reach of humans. For example, particle accelerators can only be so big; energy generators can only be so large; rockets can travel only so fast; materials can handle only so much pressure and stress. And so on. A point I wish to make in passing is that the fundamental limits of technology can be understood better by taking the underlying science more seriously (e.g. you can't have a serious opinion about the practicalities of interstellar rocket travel without first sitting down and deriving the equations of relativistic dynamics for yourself).

If nothing else, considering the full range of possibilities will relegate the high-tech ultra-boosterism of Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge, Frank Tipler and too many others to background noise or the junkyard of science fiction ... where it belongs.

 

[Kerrie]

perhaps science is progressing however it is not publicized like we expect it to be. perhaps there is technology that has been discovered but is "top secret". i think the discovery of electricity opened many doors for humanity to expand the scientific realm, had it not been for that at the particular time, we might be "set back" quite a ways still.

 

[nameta9]

Well then maybe the real limits, at least in not extreme technologies like "interstellar space travel" or "eternal life", are "mostly" politics and cultural choices and economical choices. 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). There were a lot more choices for car interiors and they were even nicer (just compare an oldsmobile 98 of 1970 with any luxury car today) (another example of going backwards). People are more into fundamentalist religion than science (an example of going backwards) and this list can go on and on. Why can't we have cars that drive themselves ? There are no complicated technologies involved just sensors on roads and wireless communications and computers, all things we have "advanced" in. Because we are not able to do it. If there are economic-political reasons than science will eventually just end and mostly be "fake". We will have loads of video games maybe...

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

How can someone even think that science is slowing down, and that it will end stopping!

My thought:

Science is like the universe.

Growing, and accelerating!

 

[moving finger]

It's interesting to me that you dismiss the internet as being so trivial. I honestly can't imagine a world without it and it's fair to say that it plays a role in the majority of my life in one way or another. The same is true for most of the people I know. There are certainly walks of life in which its influence is less, but that's true of any technology.

I would say the same about telecommunications generally. Twenty years ago mobile phones were only just being introduced in some countries, now most of the western world is heading towards >100% penetration.

I think it is all too easy to underestimate the changes we have seen in our lifetimes.

MF

 

[motai]

I would say the same about telecommunications generally. Twenty years ago mobile phones were only just being introduced in some countries, now most of the western world is heading towards >100% penetration.

Yeah. We can't forget the impact that fibre optics had on the telecommunications industry. That is definitely one area where a scientific progression spurred growth on many fronts.

At any rate, it can be difficult to see where scientific advancement can lead, even with the best predictions.

 

[Your.Master]

The whole "failure" of cars to fly has always confused me. What do you think a helicopter is?

Granted, not everybody can afford a helicopter, and it seems that's the way things shall remain for some time. But the insistance that a "flying car" must be a rectangle boggles my mind.

 

[nameta9]

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. Would we know what the limits of MATTER are in general ?

Evolution can lead to the organization of matter as complex as the human mind. Scientific research can lead to different (not necessarily as complex) organizations of matter. There may be other processes in the universe which do not follow neither evolution nor man's scientific research to achieve even more complex and sophisticated organizations of matter. The point is that matter may be organized into very complex structures like the mind but through different processes. There may be barriers between one process and another, for example evolution can only lead to a certain subclass of organized matter, man's scientific research can lead to another certain subclass of organized matter but may never be able to reach the class of objects that evolution can. There may be barriers between progressing processes that limit what each process can achieve. The real point is that matter as such can be potentially organized into very complex structures, we may just never be able to force it past a certain limit. In this sense science may have a limit, but matter may not. And even if matter were organized in an alien very complex structure and internal process, we may not even be able to recognize it!

 

[moving finger]

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.

Just a passing comment : The job of manipulating matter more rightly belongs to technology, not to science. The job of science is more concerned with our knowledge and understanding.

MF

 

[nameta9]

Well whether it is man's technology or the blind process of natural evolution matter becomes manipulated and organized into a certain combination. Sometimes one of these combinations produce internal mechanisms and processes like the mind.

What are the limits of matter whether through evolution or man made devices OR SOME OTHER PROCESS ? We could force matter into an incredibly entangled construction of chips, neurons and mechanical parts WITH NO PURPOSE OR GOAL WHATSOEVER just to see how complicated matter can be organized. Now the resulting object would not have evolved through natural evolution, and neither through scientific - technological reasoning, so it would be a completely ALIEN object that has been produced according to a completely alien process. From our point of view as man, this object would seem to be more like a work of ART since it has no purpose except that of testing the limits of how complicated matter can be organized.

In general how complicated can matter be organized whether for a goal or not ? Is evolution the only process capable of creating vastly complex organized mechanisms ? What are the real limits of MATTER as such disregarding the processes that organize it ? Even if our science/technology (sometimes the division is not so clear) is limited (even because of physical limits, like the maximum size of particle accelerators, maximum speed we can achieve etc)
maybe MATTER with its physics could achieve combinations that greatly outdue in complexity and mechanisms anything either man or natural evolution could ever do.

 

[moving finger]

What are the limits of matter whether through evolution or man made devices OR SOME OTHER PROCESS ? We could force matter into an incredibly entangled construciton of chips, neurons and mechanical parts WITH NO PURPOSE OR GOAL WHATSOEVER just to see how complex matter can be organized.

IMHO most of science is directed towards the goal of understanding the world around us, and most of technology is directed towards the goal of "improving" our "quality of life" (though I agree that these latter are subjective values). Can you provide some examples of areas of science or technology which you think has no purpose or goal whatsoever?

Now the resulting object would not have evolved through natural evolution, and neither through scientific - technological reasoning, so it would be a completely ALIEN object that has been produced according to a completely alien process.

"Alien" is a subjective notion - it simply means "wholly different in nature compared to a particular standard" - a motor car for example would be "alien" to a tribe of amazon indians. What standard are you referring to here (against which we can measure whether things are alien or not)?

From our point of view as man, this object would seem to be more like a work of ART since it has no purpose except that of testing the limits of how complex matter can be organized.

Yes, I have often viewed some so-called art as lacking in purpose

In general how complex can matter be organized whether for a goal or not ?

I see no reason why there should be limits to complexity.

Is evolution the only process capable of creating vastly complex organized mechanisms ?

No, I don't see why it should be.

What are the real limits of MATTER as such disregarding the processes that organize it ? Even if our science/technology (sometimes the division is not so clear) is limited (even because of physical limits, like the maximum size of particle accelerators, maximum speed we can achieve etc)
maybe MATTER with its physics could achieve combinations that greatly outdue in complexity and mechanisms anything either man or natural evolution could ever do.

As I said, I see no reason why complexity should have limits.

MF

 

[nameta9]

No, I changed the level of abstraction of this thread. What I mean to say is that IF science does evolve to a standstill along with its technology, this does not mean that MATTER and physics doesn't have the potential for vastly more intricate and involved processes. We may just never be able to reach them because of our limits. Everything from a single mind to societies have LOCAL (I have to buy a car, my country has to win a war etc.) goals, but seen as a whole from a more abstract viewpoint have no goal at all. It is just a complex system-mechanism-process that is operating. So we can experiment creating a kind of matter-mechanism as complicated as possible just to see how far we can reach.

 

[DaveC426913]

At this close range, we are only seeing the trees. We can't see the forest. It is very difficult to have a level of objectivity when judging the scientific progress of a decade or part of a century when you are so close to it.

Note that you are looking at your change-o-meter very often (months? years?) instead of decades or more. Of course it will show incremental changes.

How about mapping the human genome, and the genome of dozens of other animals? In a few years, we'll have uncountable genomes mapped. That's huge. We're perhaps on the verge of a while new theory of creation (string theory) that will turn our universe upsidedown. A landing on Titan. Hydrogen economy. Who know what'll happen in the next five years?

 

[moving finger]

In 1900, at a time when classical physics could be said to have been at it's "peak", Lord Kelvin made a speech to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in which he claimed that the combined theories of Newton and Maxwell represented the essential culmination of our progress in science - these were seen as the "theories of everything" at the time. Kelvin saw this era as "the end of Physics", and he predicted that there were really only two small problems to be tidied up :

One was determining the speed of the Earth through the aether.
The other was explaining the observed spectrum of "blackbody" radiation.

Kelvin claimed that these problems were mere technicalities that would soon be cleared up, leaving future physicists the job of simply measuring physical constants to better and better precision.

How wrong can anyone be?

The problem of Earth's speed through the aether formed the basis of relativity.
The problem of explaining blackbody radiation formed the basis of quantum mechanics.

The feet of the world have not touched the floor since!

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

MF

 

[nameta9]

How much will things change in the next years ? Not much. In the next 100 years I honestly don't think we will see anything similar to the rate of change we saw between 1900 - 2000. Science is SLOWING DOWN radically! No new physical theories (realtivity and quantum mechanics just about wrapped it all up), no invention like microprocessors or internet (alot of mixed gadgets like cell phone with camera, but these are just gadgets) No hydrogen fuel (they said that by 2005 we would have it). If you look back at what was expected in the year 2005 in 1995 you would be astonished at HOW LITTLE WE HAVE ACHIEVED!

All science will end up like sociology and economics; a large body of knowledge with very little possibility to manipulate the subject of its study. We know a lot about sociology but we can manipulate societies very little, same with economics.

 

[moving finger]

How much will things change in the next years ? Not much. In the next 100 years I honestly don't think we will see anything similar to the rate of change we saw between 1900 - 2000. Science is SLOWING DOWN radically! No new physical theories (realtivity and quantum mechanics just about wrapped it all up), no invention like microprocessors or internet (alot of mixed gadgets like cell phone with camera, but these are just gadgets) No hydrogen fuel (they said that by 2005 we would have it). If you look back at what was expected in the year 2005 in 1995 you would be astonished at HOW LITTLE WE HAVE ACHIEVED!

All science will end up like sociology and economics; a large body of knowledge with very little possibility to manipulate the subject of its study. We know a lot about sociology but we can manipulate societies very little, same with economics.

this sounds SO MUCH just like the sentiments at the end of the 19th century!
MF

 

[motai]

No hydrogen fuel (they said that by 2005 we would have it). If you look back at what was expected in the year 2005 in 1995 you would be astonished at HOW LITTLE WE HAVE ACHIEVED!

Hydrogen fuel isn't profitable right now, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Hydrogen fuel production is only hampered by the mixture of gas prices being comparatively low (and their hold on the industry) and consumer demand. People want massive, powerful cars that they don't particularly need.

Things like this take some time. The first airplane didn't immediately reach Mach 10 speeds and was powered by a scramjet.

As for physics research, it seems like it has many things left unexplored. Perhaps at a later date string theory and loop quantum gravity can be experimentally verified (hard to tell with today's technology). These particular mysteries in this century sound very interesting to explore.

 

[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.