The progress of science: How far have we really come?

[Rader]

I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

Well looking back, since we discovered fire, till when we discovered what fire is, much has changed in science and tecknology. If the human race is still here, when our sun turns into a red giant in 5 billion years, we probably will have harnessed the energy of this galaxy. So looking at it that way we have not done very much yet, but will someday. Your question makes sence, if you put it into the right perspective. Yes science and tecknology is progressing, but for whom? There is only a handfull of specilized scientists who can understand this knowledge. From this knowledge comes the tecknology that only 25% of the human race makes use of. It seems to me that a better measuring stick for progress in science, would be the good use we make of it, for all, not just a few. A simple well, that gives water to an entire town, is "good scientific progress"

 

[selfAdjoint]

You've made your position clear. You said, for instance "Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere". I naturally assumed that you don't know anything about these things.

It is precisely because I do know about these things, both from study and from personal experience, that I say these things. People occasionally have mystical experiences. Not all of these experiences come from pursuing some particular path, such as yoga or zen; some of them just come out of the blue. They can be splendid and convincing. I now believe they are brain states and nothing more; see zoobyshoe's testimony on neuronal events. As for philosophy I've mad a real effort to "do" Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and the phenomonologists, and they don't go anywhere that I can see. This is over and above my undergraduate philosophy courses, which ended at Kant.

 

[Canute]

It is precisely because I do know about these things, both from study and from personal experience, that I say these things. People occasionally have mystical experiences. Not all of these experiences come from pursuing some particular path, such as yoga or zen; some of them just come out of the blue. They can be splendid and convincing. I now believe they are brain states and nothing more; see zoobyshoe's testimony on neuronal events. As for philosophy I've mad a real effort to "do" Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and the phenomonologists, and they don't go anywhere that I can see. This is over and above my undergraduate philosophy courses, which ended at Kant.

Ok perhaps I was unfair. However if you post stuff about gobs of whatever it was then expect the worst.

One problem may be that you equate inner experiences with mysticism. There is nothing mystical about Buddhism or Taoism etc. Neither is there anything spiritual about them. In fact Buddhist practice involves far more rigour than scienctific practice, since NO assumptions are allowed. Also if idealism is true, as it may be, then by deduction (and mathematics) we can predict that we have to learn this from experience, not from systems of proof or third-person observations. This doesn't mean that idealism is true, but it does mean that personal experience cannot be dismissed as telling us nothing about reality. Whoever does this will never know anything except theories and hypotheses.

 

[selfAdjoint]

My use of the term mysticism was not intended to convey vagueness or sloppiness. The mystical tradition I come out of is Catholic, which is very rigorous. Read St. John of the Cross. Nevertheless, Zen and Yoga, and western traditions, do not progress. Rather they hold up examples from the distant past and tell stories about the great enlightenments of those times. In contrast the content of scientific papers this year is different from last year's, and real progress is possible and does occur.

 

[TENYEARS]

I disagree about tao, zen, buddism, and all the ism's. I find great truth in meaning in all of them. I was born catholic and still am, but I know they are also true. There were people who understood, but the religions were formed not from them, but from the people who did not understand them. If you understand what is there to build? Sould like a contradiction, no it is the truth. These words are out of what I know and not what I belive. There is a difference. Science is the same way. Because I read a book, or know a formula and know how to apply it does not mean I understand. Religious and scientific experiece are born of the same seed. It is just a matter of time.

 

[Polly]

I am very honoured to be amongst some of my best respected and certainly most learned and experienced posters here.

I would like to share with you the following poem, my favourite actually, taken out from The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche at p. 31.

1) I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I fall in.
I am lost...I am hopeless.
It isn't my fault.
It takes forever to find a way out.

2) I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I pretend I don't see it.
I fall in again.
I can't believe I'm in the same place.
But it isn't my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.

3) I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I see it is there
I still fall in...it's a habit
My eyes are open
I know where I am
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.

4) I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk
I walk around it.

5) I walk down another street.

 

[Canute]

My use of the term mysticism was not intended to convey vagueness or sloppiness. The mystical tradition I come out of is Catholic, which is very rigorous. Read St. John of the Cross. Nevertheless, Zen and Yoga, and western traditions, do not progress. Rather they hold up examples from the distant past and tell stories about the great enlightenments of those times. In contrast the content of scientific papers this year is different from last year's, and real progress is possible and does occur.

How can Buddhism progress? It seems a weird idea. It isn't some doctrine that changes over time. According to Buddhists it's the truth, it would be a bit ridiculous if it kept changing.

I just can't imagine what you mean by 'progress' here. Buddhism isn't some half finished theory of everything slowly getting better over time. The content of this years teachings isn't ever going to be different to last years. It's not some provisional scientific conjecture. What was true two thousand years ago isn't any less true now, how could it be?

I'm amazed that you see the continuous changeability of science's theories as a sign of their truth. It doesn't seem logical somehow.

 

[Canute]

I disagree about tao, zen, buddism, and all the ism's. I find great truth in meaning in all of them. I was born catholic and still am, but I know they are also true. There were people who understood, but the religions were formed not from them, but from the people who did not understand them. If you understand what is there to build?

Quite agree. Christianity is a classic example. (But NB Zen is not a religion).

Sould like a contradiction, no it is the truth. These words are out of what I know and not what I belive. There is a difference. Science is the same way. Because I read a book, or know a formula and know how to apply it does not mean I understand. Religious and scientific experiece are born of the same seed. It is just a matter of time.

Very true, but not sure about the last sentence. I don't see signs of increasing understanding. I rather think that the opposite is the case.

 

[TENYEARS]

The last sentence will be of a vision I had which will come to pass in your life time.

 

[Fliption]

Science has going for it that it produces ideas that, when converted to technology, work. I have lived through a lot of history and sociology and politics and commerce in my time, and science is the ONLY human endeavor that can make that statement. Mysticism and philosophy just keep chewing the same old fat and going nowhere. ESP periodically comes up with a new champion, who pretty soon goes away again without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile new avenues of science open up, like molecular biology, and start making predictions that work and pretty soon they generate new technology that relieves another set of human problems. And the mystics and philosophers shift the gob of old fat into their other cheek and keep on chewing.

I don't view it this way at all. This seems to be a very negative way to see things. I don't believe that philosophy and science are competing methodologies to get at the same thing. Science is just a tool of philosophy. It's a lot like a master and his dog. The master will never go fetch the stick. So if this is the way you measure progress than the master is doomed from the start. The master's job is to throw the stick in a certain direction. I believe that philosophy creates the scientific method and has some infuence over the actions of science. The conference going on in Arizona this week is an example of this type of influence, no?

If it's influence is not felt then perhaps that is lack of progress on the part of scientists and not the other way around?

 

[TENYEARS]

The great embarasment will be when the truth is known- ah reword, "recognized as truth kind of like the icream of the week". Like I have said 10000 times before belief is meaning less. If the world does not change, it's future will be all of my visions and that will be all of them. That sucks. Wake the ? up please. The world has a chance to lessen it's future pain by accepting some of it's responsibility now. I hate to say this but it is true. I am almost never wrong, and when I speak out of my knowing which is usually what I address I am never wrong, because it is not my opinion which I am speaking, but the truth. Dam. The truth is like having a hot iron in your stomach that you cannot digest and in times of visions of horror it is like a fish which gets hooked in it's gullet and the hook gets ripped out. Magnify it 100 fold and repeat continually for a while and you will know the feeling of the word horror. It comes from the pit of your soul. Imagine the fish for those of you who do not understand quite yet what a soul is.

Meaningless words of mine arn't they. A pageless book, doesn't seem like the right time yet, but we are getting closer.

 

[tabloid]

@tenyears
you said you understand what thoughts and dreams are.are there some form of hardware that we could use to store our thoughts and dreams outside our brains,thats the question I've come to think of because nowadays my dreams are becoming more vivid and clearer (meaning i can easily remember them)than before.is that possible?

 

[TENYEARS]

You are already part of the only computer there is. It is connected to all things. Do not believe me, ask a question. If the answer does not come, why do you think it did not? Is it because you are not hooked in? Is it your inability? Is there such thing as inability? Hmm.. If the answer does come back to you, how is this possible? Ask that next.

 

[russ_watters]

How can Buddhism progress? It seems a weird idea. It isn't some doctrine that changes over time. According to Buddhists it's the truth, it would be a bit ridiculous if it kept changing.

I just can't imagine what you mean by 'progress' here. Buddhism isn't some half finished theory of everything slowly getting better over time. The content of this years teachings isn't ever going to be different to last years. It's not some provisional scientific conjecture. What was true two thousand years ago isn't any less true now, how could it be?

I'm amazed that you see the continuous changeability of science's theories as a sign of their truth. It doesn't seem logical somehow.

Yes, it would be ridiculous if the Truth kept changing. That (if I may, SA) is the point: most religions are built on fundamental Truths and the pursuit of knowledge undermines them.

Using Catholicism as SA's example, one fundamental Truth was that the Earth is at the center of the universe. The Catholic church persecuted Galileo who had the audacity to say the Earth wasn't even the center of the solar system!

See the problem? Those fundamental Truths upon which religions are built aren't necessarily all that truthful.

Science does not imply that the Truth is constantly changing, nor does it claim to even have the truth: you are applying the philosophical thought process where it doesn't belong. Science is merely the pursuit of the fundamental physical Truths of the universe.

Science acknowleges through the scientific method that even if we find the fundamental Truth (theory of everything), we can never be 100% sure that we have it. This, I think, is why many people reject science in favor of mysticism: its easier because it removes uncertainty (until logic and reason cause uncertainty to raise its ugly head again).

I don't view it this way at all. This seems to be a very negative way to see things. I don't believe that philosophy and science are competing methodologies to get at the same thing. Science is just a tool of philosophy. It's a lot like a master and his dog. The master will never go fetch the stick. So if this is the way you measure progress than the master is doomed from the start. The master's job is to throw the stick in a certain direction. I believe that philosophy creates the scientific method and has some infuence over the actions of science. The conference going on in Arizona this week is an example of this type of influence, no?

If it's influence is not felt then perhaps that is lack of progress on the part of scientists and not the other way around?

Big problem with your reasoning there: science and religion often come into conflict due to new advances in science. Religion is forced to adjust - though it often takes centuries, such as in the case of the pardoning of Galileo. That gives Darwin about 300 years to go before the Catholic church considers accepting his theory.

 

[Hugo Holbling]

The Catholic church persecuted Galileo who had the audacity to say the Earth wasn't even the center of the solar system!

The Galileo affair is actually quite complex, so what do you mean by "persecution" here?

Big problem with your reasoning there: science and religion often come into conflict due to new advances in science.

Historians of science now agree that "conflicts and discordances between science and religion have arisen from historical contingencies and not from any epistemological or cultural necessity" (cf. the latest edition of Isis (94:4)). I hope you can clarify; if your comment is intended to remark on the latter, you perhaps have more work to do.

Religion is forced to adjust - though it often takes centuries, such as in the case of the pardoning of Galileo.

As i said, Galileo's case involved many factors and it would be better not to simplify it in this fashion, i suggest. Attributing an alteration to being "forced" is less than obvious, too.

That gives Darwin about 300 years to go before the Catholic church considers accepting his theory.

The Catholic position on evolution is rather more subtle, as you could learn by reading both Pius XII's and John Paul II's statements on it. They appear to be bothered not by evolution but the attendent questions of monist theories of mind, among other issues.

 

[Canute]

Yes, it would be ridiculous if the Truth kept changing. That (if I may, SA) is the point: most religions are built on fundamental Truths and the pursuit of knowledge undermines them.

Using Catholicism as SA's example, one fundamental Truth was that the Earth is at the center of the universe. The Catholic church persecuted Galileo who had the audacity to say the Earth wasn't even the center of the solar system!

See the problem? Those fundamental Truths upon which religions are built aren't necessarily all that truthful.

True. But fortunately Buddhism is not a religion, it claims to be simply the truth about existence. As yet, despite its ancient origins, there is no scientific evidence that suggests it is not, and much that suggests that it is.

Science does not imply that the Truth is constantly changing, nor does it claim to even have the truth: you are applying the philosophical thought process where it doesn't belong. Science is merely the pursuit of the fundamental physical Truths of the universe.

What is true is not the concern of science. Even scientists say that.

Science acknowleges through the scientific method that even if we find the fundamental Truth (theory of everything), we can never be 100% sure that we have it.

Good point. According to science there is no such thing as truth.

This, I think, is why many people reject science in favor of mysticism: its easier because it removes uncertainty (until logic and reason cause uncertainty to raise its ugly head again).

This is true, however it is not Buddhist who appeal to mysticism but scientists and western philosophers. They claim that there are 'ignoramibuses' that prevent us knowing anything for certain. In this religion and science are alike.

Big problem with your reasoning there: science and religion often come into conflict due to new advances in science. Religion is forced to adjust - though it often takes centuries, such as in the case of the pardoning of Galileo. That gives Darwin about 300 years to go before the Catholic church considers accepting his theory.

Yep. But don't lump all doctrines that aren't scientific under 'religion' or 'mysticism'. They are not all the same, and few are as naive as institutional Catholicism.

 

[Hugo Holbling]

What is true is not the concern of science. Even scientists say that.

According to science there is no such thing as truth.

Could you expand on both the above, please?

 

[Canute]

Could you expand on both the above, please?

Yes, sounded a bit glib. What I meant was that science is concerned with what is provable, what is true within some system of proof or other. All provable truths are relative (can be disproved starting from different assumptions), and can't be known to be true with certainty.

Science has theories which are more or less successful. But it does not assert that these theories are 'true' in any absolute sense. As I understand it science does not even accept the possibility of certain knowledge or 'Truth'.

 

[Organic]

Hi Canute,

What is your opinion abuot Mathematical Logic?

 

[Hugo Holbling]

Thanks for the additional comments. Do you not think truth has a role to play in science, particularly as an aim of inquiry (i.e. trying to find true or truthlike theories), even if truth is hard to come by?

 

[Canute]

Hi Canute,

What is your opinion abuot Mathematical Logic?

In what sense?

 

[Canute]

Thanks for the additional comments. Do you not think truth has a role to play in science, particularly as an aim of inquiry (i.e. trying to find true or truthlike theories), even if truth is hard to come by?

To be honest I'm not sure. I suppose the general idea is to seek the truth, but what is a 'true' theory? Scientific truths are relative, reached by studying things in relation to one another. If they work well they are deemed true, but this is not truth in any absolute sense. (Do you know the 'Quine-Duhem thesis?). In the end I'd agree with Aristotle and Popper (true knowledge is achievable only by the knower becoming one with the known).

 

[Hugo Holbling]

I do know the Duhem-Quine thesis. What do you make of the idea that science aims at theories that are true (or truthlike) in the correspondence (semantic) or deflationary sense? How do you find the more recent formulations of verisimilitude?

If science is not aiming at true (or truthlike) theories, what is it trying for? Can any other notion account for the motivations of scientists? It seems, superficially at least, that instrumentalism is axiologically insufficient. (I have in mind Feyerabend's methodological argument for realism.)

 

[deda]

The science has gone prety far.
Far enough to begin from the very start.

 

[Canute]

I do know the Duhem-Quine thesis. What do you make of the idea that science aims at theories that are true (or truthlike) in the correspondence (semantic) or deflationary sense? How do you find the more recent formulations of verisimilitude?

Sorry but you'll have to explain the terms a bit. I've never got into the technicalities of the different approaches to defining truth. My approach is more naive.

If science is not aiming at true (or truthlike) theories, what is it trying for? Can any other notion account for the motivations of scientists? It seems, superficially at least, that instrumentalism is axiologically insufficient. (I have in mind Feyerabend's methodological argument for realism.)

I know very little about this. However as I understand him Feyerabend was an 'epistemilogical anarchist', a pragmatist about truth. He seems to argue that all truths are relative so we must use whatever system of discovery and proof that seems appropriate to the task. From what little I know he seems to suggest that all truths are contingent. If so I don't agree with him.

I don't know about the motivations of scientists. It is now a wholly professionalised career activity so I suppose earning a living and gaining some degree of status accounts for a lot of what goes on. I'd say that the motivation comes from industry, government and grant-givers rather than scientists themselves.

I'm not sure whether instrumentalism being 'axiologically insufficient' is of any interest to (most) scientists, whether or not they agree. For most science is a good thing to do ex hypothesis, by any method available, whatever philosophers might argue, so these problems can all be ignored. My impression is that most scientists are natural instrumentalists who give little thought to axiology.

Do you have a position on these questions?

 

[Nereid]

progress, perception of progress, "science"

Kerrie's original question was:
I am posing this question to find out what others think in our "progress of science". I see science as a journey of discovery of the reality of how our universe functions, to better understand physical truth. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on? If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?[/color]

Kerrie later added:
my question was in reference to the progress of our science to the absolute reality of our physical world. are we 80% there? 25% there? this question constantly nags me...it's not like a child who is 10 and knows that when they are 18 they are adults, we don't know how far we have to go, but we can say we have progressed extensively within the last the 200 years scientifically...are we still progressing at this rate, or have we "slowed" down?

i also wonder what would happen to science if we someday had all the answers...[/color]

and:
i have this vision that someday science will progress into explaining the currently unexplainable, and this is why i proposed this thread.[/color]

Several excellent posts discussed the limits (or otherwise) of science (including what it IS), the unknowability (?) of the future, the meaning of 'unexplainable', etc.

However, there are other aspects which I feel are relevant ...

1) "Science" itself progresses. What we, today, consider to be science (crudely, the application of the scientific method) is relatively new, so in one narrow sense, 'the progress of science' is only meaningful over the period of time in which 'science' has the meaning it has today. I submit that we cannot even guess what (say) the 10th generation decendant of today's 'science' will look like, in ~3,000 to 5,000 years' time.

2) "Progress" has a significant 'perception' or 'expectation' aspect. Several have discussed how 'progress' may be measured. However, the buyers/stockholders/consumers/players' own expectations re 'progress' really do matter. For example, several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!

 

[Hugo Holbling]

Sorry but you'll have to explain the terms a bit. I've never got into the technicalities of the different approaches to defining truth. My approach is more naive.

I'm reluctant to say so, but if you look at my homepage you can find an introduction to the different theories of truth. Let me know if you have any feedback or find it isn't enough.

From what little I know he seems to suggest that all truths are contingent. If so I don't agree with him.

*shrug* Maybe we can come back to him if and when you read him?

I'd say that the motivation comes from industry, government and grant-givers rather than scientists themselves.

Perhaps partly, but not entirely. I doubt you meant to imply that, though.

My impression is that most scientists are natural instrumentalists who give little thought to axiology.

How did you come by that impression?

Do you have a position on these questions?

Sure: I'm skeptical of this instrumentalism default.

 

[Canute]

1) "Science" itself progresses.

But that's the question. Does it, and if so in what sense?

several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!

The religion/science argument has certainly been a distraction. However I'd argue that debates on superconductivity and neutrinos are insignificant, of interest only to specialists, put alongside those on consciousness and abiogenesis.

 

[Andre]

How far have we really come?

I've seem to have read an anecdote about http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/biog-rutherford.html to have been discouraged from studying physics by his teachers. Why? because everything was already discovered. Perhaps a few left over refinements but nothing substantial was to be discovered anymore. Luckily, Ernest did not listen and then he opened a totally new dimension in Physics.

Today there are few scholars that would discourage students studying physics I guess, indicating that we are nowhere near the end.

Moreover, there is also the trend about knowing more about less and less, until we know everything about nothing. I think that's wrong, especially in my field of interest (Earth sciences). There is only one way to make progress, attempting to know everything about everything and keep looking at the big picture, the total system.

 

[Nereid]

1) "Science" itself progresses.

But that's the question. Does it, and if so in what sense?

If we take 'science' to be the formal application of the scientific method, itself well described and understood, to the nature and origin of the universe, then I think a good case can be made that science has, indeed, progressed. While it's surely much exaggerated, the story of the Greek philosophers and the horse's teeth is a simple example of how far science has progressed - there wasn't much science done in those days, and it wasn't done very effectively (by today's standards).

(I've started a new thread here on how much 'science' there was, historically, in non-Western societies).

several times in the past few centuries christianity (broadly) and science (broadly) have butted heads, and there was (at least once) little warning that sparks would fly. This historical tension - which continues to this day - sets many players' expectations of what 'progress' is, or should be. Look at the debates on 'consciousness', 'evolution' (actually mostly on abiogenesis), and so on. Nothing comparable about high temperature superconductivity, or neutrino oscillation!

The religion/science argument has certainly been a distraction. However I'd argue that debates on superconductivity and neutrinos are insignificant, of interest only to specialists, put alongside those on consciousness and abiogenesis.

Just my point.

For example, I wonder how much heat there is in debates about abiogenesis in societies avowedly atheistic, or with a religious heritage quite different from christianity.