When Will Science End?
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: October 19th, 2011, 9:17 am
When Will Science End?
How long will be until the leading scientists hold a press conference to say...
"Ok, we're done, we've learned it all."
When will science end?
100 years?
1,000 years?
10,000 years?
Longer?
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: When Will Science End?
Those two black clouds, namely, the failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment to find the luminiferous aether, and the black-body radiation problem, led to Relativity theory and quantum theory respectively, revolutionizing physics and subsuming everything that came before.
Science will only end when the sponsors of science declare scientists to be priests and begin presenting science as dogma. Until then, the pursuit of science will yield an ever broadening Unknown, exactly as it should, spurring science onward. Only dogma ends the Unknown, replacing it with the Unknowable.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011, 7:38 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Arthur schopenhauer
Re: When Will Science End?
I wish it won't end till the world and the monkeys who inhabits in this earth end together! Scientists and great filmmakers/comic book writers/visualizers are two genre of people who are responsible for the good things in the world ! I don't want them to end that fast ! that's my wish
- Philohof
- Posts: 201
- Joined: August 30th, 2010, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Jose Ortega y Gasset
- Location: Vienna
- Contact:
Re: When Will Science End?
I mean, in every brochure of science foundations I read in the forewords that science is important to strenghten the competitiveness of our national economy. What I never read is, that we are doing science because we want to know more.
This is why I deduce that science has already ended. It has been replaced by "research and development of new products".
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: October 19th, 2011, 9:17 am
Re: When Will Science End?
The reason I asked the question was is that it speaks to the relationship we have to what we already know.
Consider two assertions:
1) Knowledge development accelerates as it progresses. That is, the more pieces of a jigsaw puzzle one has in place, the faster the rest of the puzzle can be completed.
2) Science won't end for a very long time. We will keep learning new things for centuries at the very least.
If we multiply accelerating knowledge development over a very long period, we can see that what we know now is a tiny almost immeasurable fraction of what can be known.
Imagine that I've just read the first paragraph of the Physics 101 textbook. Am I in a position to start coming to conclusions about physics? I'm proposing that is the position we are currently in, in relationship to what can be known.
If this is true (feel free to argue otherwise) what are the implications?
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: December 28th, 2010, 6:43 pm
Re: When Will Science End?
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: October 19th, 2011, 9:17 am
Re: When Will Science End?
Yes, it's hard to imagine the end of knowledge development, isn't it? Well, of course, assuming we don't kill ourselves off, get hit by an asteroid etc. As you say, the more we learn, the more it seems there is to learn. Science isn't crossing things off the list, but adding things to the list.TheMonk wrote: I believe scientific advancement can be viewed as a tree pattern, the more topics that are uncovered, the more topics will then spring afresh from that. Until every single one of these avenues of discovery if 'discovered' and then understood...
I need to learn more about the Higgs. The label "god particle" is surely intriguing.Science will not end, just the other day, new evidence for the higgs boson particle was discovered in the hadron collider, the idea of a 'god particle' was ridiculed by many and now it's being proven to exist. I wonder how many new ideas and theories will emerge from this?
Everything we think we currently know, we may not know at all. That seems fascinating. As example, at one time we were absolutely certain that the Earth was flat and at the center of all reality. It was so obvious, anybody could literally see it for themselves. And it was utterly wrong. One wonders how many more of these kind of changes in understanding are coming.
- stormy phillips
- Posts: 302
- Joined: November 9th, 2011, 5:30 pm
- Location: N/I
Re: When Will Science End?
- Hypedupturtle
- Posts: 75
- Joined: November 28th, 2011, 7:40 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: John Berger + Nietzsche +Jung
Re: When Will Science End?
The answer is impossible to give, and I'm personally of the belief that if the same question is asked in 10,000 years time, the answer will be the same.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: October 19th, 2011, 9:17 am
Re: When Will Science End?
Thanks for your reply Hypedupturtle. If science is still hard at work in 10,000 years, what does that say about what we know now? Do we actually know anything?Hypedupturtle wrote:The answer is impossible to give, and I'm personally of the belief that if the same question is asked in 10,000 years time, the answer will be the same.
As just one example....
We assume that science will continue for a very long time. But what occurs upon more thought, is that science as a knowledge development system will likely be replaced by other systems of thought. Religion used to be the recognized authority on everything, and has been largely replaced by science, really only in the last 500 years or so.
So, just as science replaced religion as the main method of inquiry, it seems reasonable to guess science too will be replaced in time.
Do you see what I'm getting at? We assume science is "the way", but it may be only an early step in a series of steps, which are incomprehendable to us now. These subsequent stages may reveal that everything we think we know now is a joke, just as we discovered that the earth is not flat and at the center of the universe, even though that seemed blatantly obvious at one time, for a very long time.
If our imagination can carry us that far, then a different perspective may emerge. Everything we're arguing about now may be pointless. Imagine earlier people's arguing about how far away the edge of the earth is. For centuries people probably sat around the campfire saying stuff like....
"The edge is 100 miles away!"
"No, it's 50 miles!"
"It could be as much as 500 miles!"
"No, that's ridiculous, nobody could walk that far, you're a moron."
And so on....
And it was all over nothing.
How much of what we debate today is all over nothing?
- Hypedupturtle
- Posts: 75
- Joined: November 28th, 2011, 7:40 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: John Berger + Nietzsche +Jung
Re: When Will Science End?
For example, you say that we discovered that the earth is not flat. Regardless of universal truth, that, to the majority of people at the time of common belief was still assumed to be correct "science", just as when it was disproved by another "truth", that was equally just another example of science changing. And so this continual wheel of discovery, re-discovery, correction and proof-searching has rolled ever-on throughout humanities' brief stay on the planet, and I can quite honestly see it continuing indefinitely.
I think the real question here is "can knowledge ever end" to which I'd answer no. Even if one human theoretically managed to divine and empirically catalogue every single fact and possibility that there ever has or shall be (in itself unlikely), things will still be forgotten to the mists of time as the generations roll on and miss various facets of the previous generations' learnings (be they correct or incorrect.)
How much we debate over nothing actually made me laugh, because ironically in itself, a lot of the things I spend my time debating or pondering never will actually affect my life, and are to all intents and purposes "nothing"
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: October 19th, 2011, 9:17 am
Re: When Will Science End?
Well, ok, this is sort of a semantic argument.Therefore no matter whether it's religion, right, wrong, unimportant - it's still a form of science. Therefore I'd have to argue that no matter what perspectives emerge, it's still a pursuit for knowledge and therefore still "science", or the concept is the same at least. Whether science becomes "scieg", "scintos" or even "blargh" in the future evolution of language is unimportant because the concept will still be "the search for/study of knowledge."
1) I'm not passionate about this, but to me, it's helpful that words have commonly recognized meanings. To call religion science, is to call science religion, and so on.
2) The search for/study of knowledge can not be assumed as a permanent enterprise. Thousands of years is a very long time, especially given that everything is speeding up. Assuming the search for data is to remain within the scientific mindset, which can not be assumed to be a permanent enterprise.
That's what interests me, indefinite continuation of development.And so this continual wheel of discovery, re-discovery, correction and proof-searching has rolled ever-on throughout humanities' brief stay on the planet, and I can quite honestly see it continuing indefinitely.
If we could reasonably state the this development would only last another 150 years and then be complete, then we could state with some confidence that the procedures we use now would remain in place and be used to complete the job.
But when we begin to contemplate indefinite development, seemingly without a conceivable end. a different larger picture emerges.
What if what we think of as knowledge development, the collection and analysis of data etc, is just one phase in a long line of emerging procedures? As example, to some degree at least, knowledge development has replaced the earlier system, religious faith.I think the real question here is "can knowledge ever end" to which I'd answer no.
What a perfect statement! That's part of what I'm trying to get at. If we use reason to conclude that we probably currently don't really know much of anything, then laughter is the only logical outcome of intellectual debate. All the deadly seriousness may melt away, and be replaced with joy. Talking, just for the fun of talking.How much we debate over nothing actually made me laugh, because ironically in itself, a lot of the things I spend my time debating or pondering never will actually affect my life, and are to all intents and purposes "nothing"
If intellectually oriented forum users were to come to this conclusion, then all the nothing, would become a significant something.
- Hypedupturtle
- Posts: 75
- Joined: November 28th, 2011, 7:40 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: John Berger + Nietzsche +Jung
Re: When Will Science End?
I'd generally agree, but I had to call that out because you were coming ever so close to stating that religion was somehow nugatory by comparison to modern science. However in philosophy I've learned that the best way to debate is to see all language as irrelevant and de-construct it to its separate concepts. I still do feel that science is just the search for knowledge, and therefore is totally synonymous, would you not agree?Typist wrote: 1) I'm not passionate about this, but to me, it's helpful that words have commonly recognized meanings. To call religion science, is to call science religion, and so on.
Why can it not? Why can it not be limitless? Why can knowledge not be limitless? Why does it have to have a cap, end, completion? Surely in every-day life, you learn one thing that leads you on to ponder other intricate possibilities which you then study and deduce before adding to your collection of "knowledge". Without having learned the original fact, you would never have been prompted to consider the following possibilities, and could quite easily have stood there and told me that you had reached the end of that "line of thought" which to your mind would have been completion of knowledge. Knowledge, and therefore science is totally causal, dependant on prior findings and ideas that can then be critiqued, proven, dis-proven or expanded upon. Look at the recent example of Neutrinos travelling faster than light. Until that point, we hadn't ever seriously considered the possibility of another dimension, yet here we are with it being presented as a realistic possibility. My point, if you'll excuse the warbling is that how can we ever know where something is until we have evidence, or stimuli of it? The same is very much true of knowledge - how can it ever end, for always humanity will find another question that piques their interest and so drives them to begin the scientific study of it and it's connotations, which in turn lead to another idea which quite possibly conflicts with the first, which in turn calls into question everything previously assumed.2) The search for/study of knowledge can not be assumed as a permanent enterprise. Thousands of years is a very long time, especially given that everything is speeding up. Assuming the search for data is to remain within the scientific mindset, which can not be assumed to be a permanent enterprise.
I'd personally disagree A somewhat peurile and jejune example is the Bible - after nearly 2000 years millions of people worldwide still radically believe in a book that encourages the blasphemic cannibalism of a (to my mind) fictional character (during the eucharist ritual.) All of our "scientific advancement", and still a major portion of our populace believe that as truth (which I don't condemn, merely disagree with.)Thousands of years is a very long time.
I don't think we can ever do that for reasons I've mentioned above. If we're not exploring the distant pastures of the universe, we're tampering with what we already have or seeking to re-discover that which has been lost to us. Development is a very broad word, and definitely doesn't just point chronologically forwards.If we could reasonably state the this development would only last another 150 years and then be complete, then we could state with some confidence that the procedures we use now would remain in place and be used to complete the job.
I totally agree with that - those are my personal feelings. An example could be given of viruses, which are constantly evolving and changing. Can we ever "complete" science in order to master them? I personally think not, unless we find some way to eradicate them (which may do more biological harm than good to the ecosystem of the planet.) Also, as I referenced in an earlier post, if the universe is constantly expanding, or constantly changing, then how can we ever know everything about it/them and therefore have "completed" our developmental understanding of science?But when we begin to contemplate indefinite development, seemingly without a conceivable end. a different larger picture emerges.
Not totally however, and as a budding psychologist I tremulously assert my belief that it never will (though I'm afraid that's another debate altogether.)As example, to some degree at least, knowledge development has replaced the earlier system, religious faith.
Whilst joy can unite, I don't think even a united body could ever "fill in all the blanks". I personally see the "nothing" in my life as great fun, not only because it gives me a reason to use my noggin but also because it allows me the ability to think and talk and debate in the search for truth. Even, hypothetically, if humanity did reach a state of scientific completion, the majority of people need something to work towards and believe in, and would likely turn to religion or merely continue searching the "nothingness" for truths in the unprovable maelstrom of faith.If intellectually oriented forum users were to come to this conclusion, then all the nothing, would become a significant something.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: October 19th, 2011, 9:17 am
Re: When Will Science End?
Well ok, yes, both science and religion at their heart are an attempt to understand reality. Is that what you mean? They use different methods in their inquiry, thus the different names. Fair enough?I still do feel that science is just the search for knowledge, and therefore is totally synonymous, would you not agree?
I'm not arguing it must end. I'm suggesting the scientific method, collecting and analyzing data with reason etc, may be replaced by some other system of development, which we can't imagine now.Why can it not? Why can it not be limitless? Why can knowledge not be limitless? Why does it have to have a cap, end, completion?
Pick any religion. Will it last forever? History says no.
Pick anything at all. Will it last forever. History tells us no.
So why would science, as we understand it, go on forever?
So I'm raising the wild speculation that science may be a phase, which leads to something else in time. I say this because, everything is a phase which leads to something else in time.
Just as we shouldn't assume we know anything now, that would include not knowing the best development system, at this very young age in our civilization career.
You could of course be right. My crystal ball generally only works about 48 hours forward. However, you are proposing something seemingly permanent. As we stretch the time scale out in to the future, this becomes an ever shakier proposition. If we're talking hundreds of years, ok, I can see it. But thousands of years?My point, if you'll excuse the warbling is that how can we ever know where something is until we have evidence, or stimuli of it? The same is very much true of knowledge - how can it ever end, for always humanity will find another question that piques their interest and so drives them to begin the scientific study of it and it's connotations, which in turn lead to another idea which quite possibly conflicts with the first, which in turn calls into question everything previously assumed.
The stability of Christianity is indeed a fascinating topic. But given that you believe as you do, you probably don't envision this religion continuing forever, right? After all, no religion ever has.A somewhat peurile and jejune example is the Bible - after nearly 2000 years millions of people worldwide still radically believe in a book that encourages the blasphemic cannibalism of a (to my mind) fictional character (during the eucharist ritual.) All of our "scientific advancement", and still a major portion of our populace believe that as truth (which I don't condemn, merely disagree with.)
What I'm arguing is that science too, while being incredibly useful to us today, is also likely not perfect, not permanent.
Oh, that one is easy. Just step in to the time machine, due to be released in June of 2367. (Except by then it will be called Narg of 34987.)Also, as I referenced in an earlier post, if the universe is constantly expanding, or constantly changing, then how can we ever know everything about it/them and therefore have "completed" our developmental understanding of science?
Never is a long time, but I'm in general agreement. Religion has proven itself to be very durable.Not totally however, and as a budding psychologist I tremulously assert my belief that it never will (though I'm afraid that's another debate altogether.)
- Hypedupturtle
- Posts: 75
- Joined: November 28th, 2011, 7:40 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: John Berger + Nietzsche +Jung
Re: When Will Science End?
YepTypist wrote: Well ok, yes, both science and religion at their heart are an attempt to understand reality. Is that what you mean?
Definitely a possibility, but one that I can't see catching on; Humanity is cynical - it always looks for proof, and only reverts to faith if it can find none or its proof is consistently attacked for being unreliable yet still wants to believe. That may possibly change, I don't pretend to know enough to state that it definitely won't, but I personally believe it's ingrained upon our genetic make-up. We search for a cause to every effect - even on a biological level (our nerves tell us that damage has occured and we therefore seek the cause, being an example.) There is very little I can think of besides basic primal instincts (hunger, sexual arousal, etc.) that we seek no cause for and merely accept without question. I think science is a part of that need to find the stimuli for every event and visa versa.I'm not arguing it must end. I'm suggesting the scientific method, collecting and analyzing data with reason etc, may be replaced by some other system of development, which we can't imagine now.
Sure, I can go with the possibility, yet I don't necessarily think the probability is that high.So I'm raising the wild speculation that science may be a phase, which leads to something else in time. I say this because, everything is a phase which leads to something else in time.
Don't they all?You could of course be right. My crystal ball generally only works about 48 hours forward.
I don't know, I think due to "time erosion" and the number of new questions/theories that every single current scientific discovery inspires, combined with the fact that we honestly don't know how finite or otherwise the universe is, and there's great potential there for thousands if not potentially limitless years of study and intellectual questing. Frankly the idea of reaching the end of that quest is a sad proposition, for where would the adventure be?However, you are proposing something seemingly permanent. As we stretch the time scale out in to the future, this becomes an ever shakier proposition. If we're talking hundreds of years, ok, I can see it. But thousands of years?
The stability of Christianity is indeed a fascinating topic. But given that you believe as you do, you probably don't envision this religion continuing forever, right? After all, no religion ever has.
Religions morph, borrow from each other, steal and evolve. I don't envision is staying time-locked in its current form for ever, but I'm sure elements of current Christianity will survive well into the future, or become part of future religions. I'm very into the studies of Paganism, and find it fascinating how Christianity was only adopted by a Roman Emporer so that he could turn his war into a "Holy War" and wreak more havoc upon his Pagan foes with frothing, screaming zealots on his side, whom he also envisioned as being calmer and easier to deal with and keep peaceful. Christianity caught on, and so helped the Romans better fight their enemies and spread new ideals, one of them being Christianity which incorporated various ideas and borrowed certain elements from the existing, conquered religions such as the Pagan tribes to become an early form of what it is now.
Even in Christianity's current form, Adam and Eve's son, Seth, also happens to be an Ancient Egyptian deity, a country which the pillaging Romans just happened to pass through and incorporate whilst building their Empire only a couple of hundred years before that very same Emperor (Constantine I) is believed to have compiled the forefather of our modern day version of the Bible with his council. Ahh but I digress.
Is this where I'm supposed to spuriously and totally spontaneously provide the answer to 42?Oh, that one is easy. Just step in to the time machine, due to be released in June of 2367. (Except by then it will be called Narg of 34987.)
In seriousness though, how do we know that they'll know?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023