Most important piece of scientific knowledge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of what single piece of scientific knowledge should be preserved for future generations in the event of a cataclysm that wipes out all scientific understanding. Participants explore various ideas, including fundamental scientific concepts, methods, and practical knowledge, reflecting on their significance and applicability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests the atomic hypothesis as the most informative statement about the world.
  • Another argues for the preservation of scientific methods, asserting that they are essential for rediscovering knowledge like atomic theory.
  • A different viewpoint highlights Galileo's quote about mathematics as the language of nature as a crucial idea to preserve.
  • One participant proposes the Pythagorean theorem as a foundational concept for a technologically simple future race.
  • Another suggests that the idea of atoms may not be practical for a primitive society, advocating instead for knowledge about electricity or instructions for making clear glass.
  • Some participants express humor and camaraderie, sharing personal anecdotes and light-hearted comments about their responses to the question.
  • One participant mentions the logarithmic nature of reality and the limitations of human perception in understanding the vastness of the universe.
  • Another suggests that a slide rule could serve as a useful artifact containing mathematical knowledge.
  • Several participants reflect on the importance of foundational knowledge versus advanced scientific concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on what knowledge is most important to preserve, with no clear consensus emerging. Some favor fundamental scientific concepts, while others prioritize methods or practical knowledge. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants' suggestions vary significantly based on assumptions about the technological level of future generations and the practicality of the knowledge preserved. There are also differing opinions on the relevance of advanced scientific concepts versus foundational ideas.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the philosophy of science, the history of scientific knowledge, or the implications of knowledge preservation in hypothetical scenarios.

  • #31
Do we have to take into account that if we tell them "Spacetime is four dimensions and warped by gravity" by the time they develop Newtonian mechanics and are at a point where they can say "wtf does this even really mean?" the knowledge of this sentence is probably already gone? I mean, how many generations can they seriously be expected to pass it down without any idea of what it actually says
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
"Science is not as important as the Kardashians".
 
  • #33
I'm not sure what the benefit would be to keeping anything but the most basic physics in this scenario. Aside from empirical philosophy itself knowledge of hygiene, basic germ theory (with antibiotic knowledge), agriculture, metallurgy and principles of democracy would probably give a society the best start.
 
  • #34
Ryan_m_b said:
...empirical philosophy itself...
I can't think of any seed idea that would have any sure, lasting resonance beyond empiricism.

wiki said:
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

The information that everything is composed of atoms could easily crash and burn, becoming a mystical cult based on "revelation" or tradition, without being embedded in empiricism.
 
  • #35
I don't think we would need to send back any specific information about atoms or the scientific method. After all, it took a while, but we figured it out eventually. I think the message should be more poetic like an omen or warning about how some discoveries can be used for evil. There are countless examples of great discoveries being used to inflict misery on many people.

"Don't be Evil"
 
  • #36
"We've received a message: don't be evil!"

"Excellent! What shall we do because of it?"

"Isn't it obvious? We should do good and extinguish the evil of the blacks, the gays and the Jews."

Moral of the horrific story of history: morality is malleable.
 
  • #37
Ryan_m_b said:
"We've received a message: don't be evil!"

"Excellent! What shall we do because of it?"

"Isn't it obvious? We should do good and extinguish the evil of the blacks, the gays and the Jews."

Moral of the horrific story of history: morality is malleable.

"Don't be Evil" was just stollen from Google's motto. I'm not eloquent enough to write the actual message consicely.

The message would include this omen about the dangers of mis-using scientific discoveries allong with the "morality is malleable" part you mentioned.
 
  • #38
I doubt hitting them with one specific scientific bit of knowledge will really help. I agree with Ryan, you need to get them to a good head start in developing civilization. Science and technology develop rapidly when the mundane things in life like food, water, shelter etc are taken care of and people have enough leisure time to pursue trivial matters (trivial in a pragmatic sense).

So depending on how far back the cataclysm sets mankind you'd provide them with the next big discovery to get them well on their way. Something like fire, the wheel, agriculture, the stuff's of the industrial revolution etc. These will aid much more into helping the human race to re-discover all the Scientific knowledge they lost. Who cares about an atom if you need to run after a gazelle for 5 hours just to get some meat on the table?
 
  • #39
Hmm... what about some (distant) target as incentive to study nature?
"With science, it is possible to go to the Moon".
 
  • #40
mfb said:
Hmm... what about some (distant) target as incentive to study nature?
"With science, it is possible to go to the Moon".

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I would add...

"With science, it is possible to go to the moon or to destroy the earth. The choice is yours. "
 
  • #41
flatmaster said:
That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I would add...

"With science, it is possible to go to the moon or to destroy the earth. The choice is yours. "
As others have said this is too easy to fade into myth. I can't remember which religion has the saying "with faith it's possible to move mountains" but that statement is functionally indistinguishable to "with science it's possible to go to the moon". Ironically without showing how to get to the moon the latter statement is somewhat unscientific
 
  • #42
I would have one helluva run-on sentence.
 
  • #43
tade said:
Oh yes. But I'm sure people would want to know more. :smile:

More about physics that SR? Do the physicists really know more? less the complication that's gravity
 
Last edited:
  • #44
flatmaster said:
"Don't be Evil" was just stollen from Google's motto. I'm not eloquent enough to write the actual message consicely.

The message would include this omen about the dangers of mis-using scientific discoveries allong with the "morality is malleable" part you mentioned.
People will always find ways to misuse something. And Google seems to be getting more evil by the day :rolleyes:
 
  • #45
Ryan_m_b said:
mfb said:
Hmm... what about some (distant) target as incentive to study nature?
"With science, it is possible to go to the Moon".

As others have said this is too easy to fade into myth. I can't remember which religion has the saying "with faith it's possible to move mountains" but that statement is functionally indistinguishable to "with science it's possible to go to the moon". Ironically without showing how to get to the moon the latter statement is somewhat unscientific

It is unscientific, but other than being associated with religion, more imaginative people would think of it.

For instance, Kepler even wrote a sci-fi novel about sailing to the moon on a "skyship".
 
  • #46
nitsuj said:
More about physics that SR? Do the physicists really know more? less the complication that's gravity

Yes, more. All there is to know.
 
  • #47
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.
 
  • #48
Devils said:
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.

That's actually incredibly useful; I hadn't thought of it. Prior to germ theory, the lack of proper sanitation really hindered the livelihood of the human species.

Most of the other suggestions are surely helpful in terms of scientific knowledge, but as far as actually contributing to the survival of humanity, this one seems to be the best.

EDIT:

I guess an earlier post or two mentioned germ theory. Regardless, I still think it is very beneficial idea to pass on.
 
  • #49
One of the things that stopped science for many hundreds years was the fact that experiments were considered unnecessary. So I would go with something like "scientific method & the nature is always right" - but I agree that first, it can be abused, second, you need a critical mass for things to get started.
 
  • #50
I think what several people have tried to say, e.g. about experiment is better (as well as more completely and accurately) expressed

"The two divergent views" (I.e. the value of knowledge as an end in itself, as against as a means to useful applications) "... The history of the sciences was made not by the one or the other school of thought but from the interplay of both. ... theories and hypotheses are seldom based on a panoramic survey of the general scene. They rest more often on a detailed searching into matters which a casual view might well dismiss as specialised, recondite and obscure, and access to the realm of fruitful theories is usually by devious and unexpected ways, found out by men with very different ends in view." (Cyril Hinshelwood, "Structure of Physical Chemistry")

I'd add that although people sometimes research obscurities for their own sakes they more often than not had a reasonable idea of the importance of what they were into, a somewhat trained insight to realize that investigating specific heats or the length of pea plants In crosses could reveal something deeper behind the apparent obscurity. I mentioned the example of early electrostatics in #16. You encounter only a specialised often unobvious bit of the world in the laboratory.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
tade said:
Yes, more. All there is to know.

Yea I agree, I was just being a jackass. :smile: but I do need to subtract "All there is to know", HA "they" wish! (and me too)
 
  • #52
Devils said:
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.

"The devils in the details" :smile: came to mind.
 
  • #53
Devils said:
Keep yourself and hands clean, observe sanitation in yourself, your food and water.

I think many modern-day humans still need to be reminded of this. :-p
 
  • #54
nitsuj said:
"The devils in the details" :smile: came to mind.

Don't make another post, otherwise you'll go over the lucky number. :smile:
 
  • #55
Borek said:
One of the things that stopped science for many hundreds years was the fact that experiments were considered unnecessary. So I would go with something like "scientific method & the nature is always right" - but I agree that first, it can be abused, second, you need a critical mass for things to get started.

Was it Plato who advocated lying in bed and thinking instead of performing experiments? And Aristotle was the young hotshot who believed otherwise?


epenguin said:
"The two divergent views" (I.e. the value of knowledge as an end in itself, against as a means to useful applications)
Some people do research for the first reason, in general, society wants it to be done for the second reason.

In addition, Einstein said "Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition".


Speaking of practicality, the LHC costs 9 billion USD, how did they manage to get the European governments to finance it? Especially given Europe's current state of affairs.
 
  • #56
in general, society wants it to be done for the second reason.
Not always, and the society does not make direct decisions about big science projects.

The LHC produces useful applications. Win-win situation for all.
 
  • #57
mfb said:
Not always, and the society does not make direct decisions about big science projects.

The LHC produces useful applications. Win-win situation for all.

Like the huge computer network required? I wonder how much funding it still receives as of now. Most European governments would have probably classified it as low priority due to the economic crisis.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
The huge computer network and various software developments, the high-tech particle detectors, data analysis methods, radiation hard components, ...
Funding is sufficient to run or improve the accelerator and the detectors, and the planned upgrades get enough money to proceed, too.
 

Similar threads

High School Thinking about a calendar epoch based on the field of physics
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Graduate Is "Equal a priori Probabilities" the correct scientific approach?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Why is General Relativity not a requirement for scientific education?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Graduate Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Understanding without using math
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
My Take on the Limitations of Scientific Knowledge
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Selective learning via backwards traversal
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Graduate Discovering the Fundamental Ideas of Physics: From Atoms to Conservation Laws
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K