Slashdot Mirror
Is the Era of Groundbreaking Science Over?
An anonymous reader writes "In decades and centuries past, scientific genius was easy to quantify. Those scientists who were able to throw off the yoke of established knowledge and break new ground on their own are revered and respected. But as humanity, as a species, has gotten better at science, and the basics of most fields have been refined over and over, it's become much harder for any one scientist to make a mark on the field. There's still plenty we don't know, but so much of it is highly specialized that many breakthroughs are understood by only a handful. Even now, the latest generation is more likely to be familiar with the great popularizers of science, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and Carl Sagan, than of the researchers at the forefront of any particular field. "...most scientific fields aren't in the type of crisis that would enable paradigm shifts, according to Thomas Kuhn's classic view of scientific revolutions. Simonton argues that instead of finding big new ideas, scientists currently work on the details in increasingly specialized and precise ways." Will we ever again see a scientist get recognition like Einstein did?"
Is groundbreaking science over? No, not remotely. Is the era where groundbreaking science is publicized and sort of vaguely understood by a lot of non-scientists over? Probably not, but that's at least closer to the truth.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I think the argument that the author is trying to make is that the scope of new work is more tightly focussed than before. There have been relatively few new 'fundamental' discoveries in physics, compared to refinements and increasing precision.
Agreed, the is what he is talking about, but was it not always thus?
When Mendel was laying the foundations of Genetics, the idea of DNA was unknown.
He was working at the edge of knowledge, with no possible way forward.
He described WHAT happened but could not even approach the HOW.
Now, DNA pretty much defines Genetics as a science. We understand the HOW somewhat better.
At least we know where to look.
There must be more questions that we aren't even beginning to answer. WHY, for one (Why dna, Why here)
WHERE for another. Did DNA originate here? If we find life on mars, will it have DNA?
Or will it be totally different?
"To the best of our knowledge, the original chemicals chosen by known life do not constitute a unique set; other choices could have been made, and maybe were made if life started elsewhere many times."
Paul Davies.
Lots left to do.
Science doesn't know everything. Science Knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise, they'd Stop!.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
we will have a coherent explanation for all observable physical phenomena
Contrary to popular belief we have no explaination for gravity, spacetime, or the other fundamental forces (eg: try and define "time" without the definition becoming circular). What we have are models that predict how these "miracles" behave and interact in most situations.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It always amuses me that Mendel's pea plant experiments would not get past peer review these days.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Contrary to popular belief we have no explaination for gravity, spacetime, or the other fundamental forces
False. We have no falsifiable, measurable, or experimentally verifiable explanation for gravity, spacetime, or other fundamental forces.
Explanations abound, but there is almost inherently no way that science can test any coherent explanation that came up.
As far as good scientists are concerned... if you can't measure something, and you can't test it -- then it is irrelevent.
It may be true or false -- you don't know -- it falls into the realm of 'belief' or 'religion' instead of science, if it is not testable.