- Yaron Tokayer
- Teaneck, NJ
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?
My bioelectricity class is half science and half history. When we bring up a new topic, we often first pause to set its historical backdrop from a political and experimental perspective. This is particularly interesting, given that in bioelectricity, experiments date back several hundred years, but are also unfolding every day (quite literally, if we consider that ion channels are proteins whose foling structures are a topic of this field -- see http://fold.it/portal/ for a link to the fold it protein folding game taking the world by storm). But when I try to consider new research, I find myself feeling viscerally skeptical of our own time's limited perspective on our own accomplishments to date.
Phillip von Jolly, Planck's professor at Munich, is pretty much solely known for falsely predicting of physics that, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes." Similarly, Lord Kelvin is said to have proclaimed that "there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Both of these quotes were said at the dawn of the quantum era. I think we humans tend to assume that we are at the end of history, that all scientific and social progress has culminated to the present.
The question I would like to pose is whether or not science is at least honing in on an absolute reality--what philosophers call "scientific realism." Are we getting closer--converging--to the end of scientific discovery with each paradigm shift, or do we just recast how we understand the world in a different vocabulary? From one perspective, the miasma theory of disease, which preceded today's germ theory, was thought to be approximately accurate experimentally, just like today's germ theory is "approximately accurate" as far as it's clinical effectiveness. Is there a truth of nature behind a curtain for us to discover? If there is, are humans capable of acieving it?
Anthony Schroeder
Anthony Schroeder
Think of each paradigm as a lens of a microscope. In each lens, a certain level of structure can be seen. Attempts to define that structure define our knowledge of it. But eventually there comes a point in which no further data can be ascertained by that level of focus, even if there be small holes or fuzzy lines in the scope. From the viewpoint of the original objective to define the lens, the goal is essentially complete. The fuzzy lines or holes have small relative effect in the larger objective of the lens.
But there will always be people bothered by the holes and fuzzy lines. In order to investigate those, a fundamental paradigm shift must occur, In the new lens, nothing has yet been discovered. The process repeats. Eventually however one must conclude that absolute uncertainty must at some point be the limiting factor in which out paradigm may be allowed to focus.
The questions then is zooming out once more and editing those holes and fuzzy lines.
Because of the very nature of paradigms and truly that of humanity, there are relatively short periods of time in which scientific theory appears mostly vacant. The rest of the time (until a shift occurs) it must by effect appear to be nearing conclusion. I think of the macroscopic population theory of punctuated equilibrium. Many changes occur very rapidly then relative stagnancy.
Warren Peace
Alison Acevedo
In response to: "The question I would like to pose is whether or not science is at least honing in on an absolute reality--what philosophers call 'scientific realism.'"
Scientific realism is a philosophy that assumes objectivism. If a scientific realist were asked the question about the sound of the tree falling in the forest, they would respond that independent of us, the tree, gravitational force required to pull the tree down and the medium of atmosphere that the sound wave travels through all exist - so yes, the tree would make a sound. The problem is that objectivity can not be proven by any human observer because humans are subjective. So in the end, humans can't answer your question because we are not objective by nature.
However, let's assume that there is a 'truth to nature.' I would not want to know that there is an end to discovery, that there exists a finite amount of stuff in the universe that I can observe. Existential despair is a loss of hope, a loss of the thing which defines someone. Although it may seem the easy solution to existentialism to discover this rock that is truth and rest our identities on it, it in fact would be such a loss to no longer have the ability to search for truth.
In summary, I don't think humans are capable of realizing an end to discovery and I am not sure I would like to realize absolute reality even if I had the ability.
Kim Laes
Phillip Von Jolly and Lord Kelvin simply forgot how to dream...
Hindi Kornbluth
I really like this conversation (it is a discussion that I often have with my non-scientifically inclined friends), not just because of its nature to mimic the very history it calls into question [with the excellent examples of Lord Kelvin and Phillip Von Jolly that you provided], but because I think that when it comes down to it, the answer is irrelevant. Sure, one could argue that our universe is infinitely large and that physical things in our universe are infinitely small and we really have little hope of ever reaching an end to understanding at either extreme, or that as it currently stands we have an understanding of our universe that goes above and beyond the realm of "what we need to know" about it in order to function in it [ie I've heard the argument "but why does the average human *need* to understand quantum mechanics?"]. But in reality, I think that even if the premise is correct, that there could ever be some end to scientific discovery and we could close the book on scientific history, we should never believe it to be true. We should always assume that there is more out there to be understood and we should keep exploring and experimenting.
(Another reason I love this conversation: It gives me the chance to use my third favorite Douglas Adams quote of all time: “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” )
George Holevas
Osaze Udeagbala
Your point is totally valid... but I'd like to point out that it is essentially identical to the historical statements of Kelvin and von Jolly.
I'm a believer of the notion that history repeats itself, and I see a trend here. Countless intelligent people devote their entire lives to understanding our environment and how we interact with it, and eventually it becomes perfectly logical to assume that the major centers of the "scientific arena" have been identified. Then some benign discovery comes along and tears a gaping hole in our bubble of knowledge, sparking a race to explain this discovery. It's almost like the gold rush era in California - except there are seemingly unlimited supplies of gold.
I like to envision the relationship between the known and unknown as a battlefront on an infinite plane. Sure, we continue to make advances, and that's great for society, but by no means does that guarantee or even imply that we are running out of unknown territory to conquer.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Paradigm shift is related to Cosmology Studies-that involve big Questions
Evolution of new concepts to accommodate creative Spiritual Wisdom is part of Cosmos Quest
Science is at cross-roads as it moves away from nature and Philosophy.
Search for Dimensional Knowledge-Base
http://vidyardhicosmology.blogspot.in/2011/10/light-flow-interaction-plasma-vision.html
Kyung Lee
Jonathan Huang
It is very important that we continue to question the accepted theories and discoveries of past scientists. This is even more important as new discoveries are found and theories get older.
Furthermore, I believe that as more technology is available, science will be able to be explained more thoroughly filling in any gaps that are currently present. I personally do not believe there is a limit to science, however we will never really know the answer to this.
peter ezzell
I don't think so, at least not in our current form. I consider our species to be marginally rational with limited cognitive abilities. Each of us can barely see the outlines of a small part of reality of which we are a part. Most of our mental life is spent living in crude constructs, mental models of the outer world, some models no doubt better than others, some purely fantastical We can speculate, and make stuff up, each of which we do well, but knowing is another thing entirely..
Yaron Tokayer
It sounds like you are stressing the importance of humility in science. (This has come up a bit--you may enjoy reading some of the conversations below. check out Ben Jarvis's, Krisztián Pintérand's, and Mark Kurtz's). I like your point of questioning what it means to "know" something. I agree. I've come to believe through this conversation that "knowledge" is not the business of science.
peter ezzell
Scientist or not, stepping back from time to time and asking ourselves what is real, what do we truly know, what seems to be correct and why, and what is simply a construction, a tool, a metaphor, to help us understand is important. In my opinion we are not good at that - we (speaking about humans broadly here) accept too much as fact.
I do think progress has been made, that we are generally stumbling in the right direction, and that we are not just fooling ourselves by creating a new vocabulary from time to time. But we are in the early days of our journey...
Lauren Bayer
Jay Dalal
Scientific inquiry, as far as I know, is either about A) branching off fields already known or B) finding the links between known fields. And maybe it's possible to exhaust that map. But each of these fields of inquiry was born from an /accident/: something that was not expected but was observed. We can't force more of these accidents, and that's another one of our limitations.
Nature is an ongoing process. We agree that there was a time before life began and before the big bang. Anywhere at anytime, some combination of coincidences might start off a new era. Science will never stop being invented by nature and we never have to be bored.
Jon Lawhead
That is, it seems to me that the endpoint of the insight that Kuhn had--that big breakthroughs in science often result in entirely new ways of looking at things--isn't relativism, but a kind of integrated pluralism. We can recognize that there are many different ways to look at the world around us, and that each of those ways might contribute to a more holistic understanding of the natural world _even if_ they can't be expressed in a common language. The project of cross-referencing patterns in the time-evolution of the natural world is an important one, and Kuhn's real legacy is, I think, first suggesting that this _is_ a project worth pursuing. The story of science is a story of progress through collaboration.
Yaron Tokayer
From the little that I've read and learned formally (from you), I believe it is true that Kuhn is commonly misunderstood in that way. I tried to use the term in a parve (neutral) way, but thanks for the clarification.
So if I'm understanding correctly, this "cross-referencing" that Kuhn calls for is acknowledging that accurate results from old theories are maintained in later ones, as they should be. And sometimes we'll even utilize an older language to describe things because it is most useful if a particular case. For example, we may use Newton's formula for gravity in a simply 2 body problem, because it is a good way to look at the problem, even if it may not be the entire picture, according to general relativity. Is this correct?
It also sounds like Kuhn does believe then in a sort of convergence of theories. Scientific progress, according to him, seems like an iterative revision proccess, which to me implies finer and finer tunings and an eventual finished product.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Hadar Cohen
The question you pose is one that I find that many people ponder throughout their lives. It is a difficult one because I think we all know that humanity will never really achieve a full understanding of all of science. However, we still can't help but feel sometimes that we are very close. You quoted prestigious people that have stated similar thoughts. When studying science, it is simple to envision a world in which everything can make sense to us. But this just confirms our limited perception.
I find it scary to admit that humans do not have the ability to conquer the scientific world. It will continue to amaze and inspire us in many different ways that are beyond our control.
Yaron Tokayer
I think you bring up a good point about the scary and daunting thought of never achieving a complete knowledge of the universe. I also find it interesting that--and this has come up a few times already--this doesn't seem to discourage us. Human curiosity has proven quite resilient, even when many do not believe in an end goal. I guess it's the passional experience that keeps us going rather than the end result.
You wrote, "I think we all know that humanity will never really achieve a full understanding of all of science." I wouldn't be so sure. What I've found so interesting and what I've learned in bringing this up to family and peers is that people tend to be very sure one way or the other.
Jon Lawhead
Yaron Tokayer
But do you not acknowledge the innate human (and maybe most species?--they just aren't as successful?) desire to grow in understanding and dominance of the universe? This may be a meaningless aspiration and it probably does us well to overcome it, but it seems to be a shared human sentiment across generations. I think this may be what Hadar was reffering to as scary.
Avi Gadish
To delve deeper, lets think about how the world seemed to scientists before the microscopic world was unlocked when Rober Hooke saw "little rooms" and called them cells. This opened the door to a whole new realm of science which only further opened doors to even more realms (i.e. quantum theory, microbiology, etc.). In fact, this month, scientists were able to "program" bacteria to function as simple logic gates and even remember past computations! This type of discovery could lead to an entire new world of technology! Things are yet to be discovered, and we can even begin to imagine where those discoveries will take us.
Now, lets Zoom out. Let us assume we do conquer the science of our world... There is still so many other worlds and solar systems and galaxies that have different sets of science hereunto unknown to our planet! While this approach may seem far-fetched (and maybe outside the scope of your question), I think it's quite unlikely that young bright scientists will one day just sit in their labs, playing with their microscopes because they have nothing to do.
greg dahlen 20+
edward long 100+
Jon Lawhead
edward long 100+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
And here is a TED talk about people's attempts to justify what they want to believe with false representations of neuroscience: http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.html
But I understood your inquiry to be about what science will ACTUALLY be able to explain to us rather than whether popular understandings of science will come to be complete.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
1, black body thermal radiation refused to work as the models suggested
2, the exact nature of the luminiferous aether was to be discovered
then came einstein with the theory that light is emitted in small packs. and there went our entire knowledge of electromagnetism to give place to the new quantum theory.
then came michelson and morley to find that there is no aether, and some really weird things are going on. and then came einstein again, to postulate that our entire knowledge of newtonian mechanics is also wrong, and thus the theory of relativity was born.
so einstein singlehandedly turned "almost complete" to "damnit, we know nothing"
Yaron Tokayer
That narrative is exactly what I was referring to. I think that last line sums it up well :)
So my understanding is that you are arguing for "pessimistic meta-induction," or the belief that we will never settle on a final science of the world, based on the fact that every theory until now has been replaced. I find this pretty convinving as well. However--and this is what holds me back form fully subscribing to pessimistic meta-induction--doesn't it seem like the corrections we are making are becoming more and more fine-tuned? Newton introduced gravity and shattered the Aristotelian view. Einstein didn't debunk the idea of gravity, but rather explained it in a way that accounted for more things. Indeed, our theories are still being replaced, but don't the corrections seem to be getting more petty as time goes on?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but i see signs of that hybris again. i don't think that our beliefs in quantum mechanics and cosmology are as well grounded as some claim.
Jon Lawhead
Krisztián Pintér 200+
and the reason why we shouldn't, and i am not, is because we still use newtonian mechanics extensively today. in fact i'm kind of sure that newtonian mechanics will be in use forever. it has not turned out to be wrong, it just turned out to be a part of the picture, not the whole picture. since the 1600's, when proper science started to take root, we can kind of sure that what we know stands. every new discovery extends our knowledge, maybe shines a new light on it, but does not rewrite it. so we can be sure that what we know is more or less the truth, and that is what we should aspire for.
Jon Lawhead
I was just clarifying, not disagreeing with your point. I agree entirely that Newtonian mechanics is not best described as _wrong_ but just as _incomplete:_ Newton identified some real patterns in how the world works, but there are other stories to be told as well.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
it worths to be pointed out though that while the predictions of the models are compatible, the models themselves are often completely rewritten. it is a very interesting philosophical problem, whether our models has anything to do with reality other than a mapping between elements of the model and the observable world. thus the question can be raised whether any scientific theory can be true, or it can just be useful. or to rephrase it, usefulness and truthfulness are the same or not. i myself lean toward the notion that in natural sciences, truth equals to descriptive power, and nothing more.
Yaron Tokayer
I've tried to think about it, and I can't seem to find meaning in the word "truth," other than usefulness. Meaning, I think it's pragmatic to describe theories as true to the extent that they work. Call it truth, call it heresy, or call it black magic--the only testable difference in the world will always come down to whether or not it predicts accurately. I am in agreement with you.
I think the question of truth then become psychological--a human belief. To be sure, I think belief in truth can be important in areas other than experimental sciences, but I don't see it's place in scientific discourse.
Mark Kurtz 20+
Why would anyone want to say we've done it all, there could never possibly be anymore? Seems like small thinking.
Yaron Tokayer
I think I'm with you on the small thinking. It brings to mind Francis Fukuyama's 1989 essay "The end of history?" in which he basically suggested that the end of the Cold War signified the end of man's sociological development and eternal acceptance of democracy. I find it very easy to be skeptical of such ambitious claims, much like William Thomson's and von Jolly's quoted above. You may want to check out the thread that Ben Jarvis started a few comments below.
Richard Krooman 50+
Well I do believe that nature can be fully understood through physics eventually (we're not there yet and I don't know how long it will take. But there should be some sort of limit as to how it actually works). And yes I do think that humans can describe/learn that.
And because all other sciences are eventually physics we should be able to figure everything out that is possible to find out.
I think that the only ways we don't get there is if humanity is erased before that time or if humanity has put moral boundries on further study. Simply because they realize that "we don't want to know" (or "ignorance is bliss" - the matrix).
Gail . 50+
I believe YES and YES, but that does not mean that there will be an end to science history. Quantum Mechanics has made some ASTOUNDING discoveries that force a paradigm shift on all who are well-versed in it. It is the basis for new fields of exploration (centered around study of "mind" as a power).
There are a growing number of people who have "awakened" into a greater reality. The paradigm shift is already occurring. It's just not yet popular.
There will always be new fields of exploration. That is pretty much at the core of what QM is suggesting.
Yaron Tokayer
I'm not sure I understand (and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comment)--which is it? Do you believe yes and yes, that we will eventiually have a comprehensive "true" science, or that there will always be new fields of exploration? In my mind, it has to be one or the other.
Do you mean that just because our theory may be complete one day, that will not halt our curiosity to further explore our universe with that theory? This would imply that discoveries don't always have to force a revision of theory.
Gail . 50+
Using specific techniques, I use the potential energy that exists as the dissonance between what I have and what I want to propel me toward my desired location (the now-potential dimension - where what I want is manifest physically. (Most who do this say simply that they create their own reality).
Once this, that works extremely well for me, is the proven explanation for WHAT a human is and what reality looks like (and there is already abundant evidence supporting a multiverse of some sort), then the core of science is already laid out. The only thing left will be questions (that are always answered, by the way).
Some will ponder questions about interstellar travel. Others - how to create a perfect food source that does not involve slaughter. Still others will probe the depths of self. And others will seek to apply mind-power to controlling weather. (Etc.)
Therefore, How reality works is a question that will have been answered. The rest is simply using that knowledge to explore the wonders of reality. That part is continual.
Yaron Tokayer
I like what you pointed out about knowledge not necessarily stopping human exploration. I've been thinking a lot about it since this conversation started (cf. my last response to you). Do discoveries always demand a revision of theory? Otherwise they don't really sound like discoveries, but rather observing things we already know to be true. I don't know. I would like to believe though, as I mentioned in my response to Bob Stiglitz, that human curiosity and drive to understand and probe the world is endless, even if we get to a point when we have a comprehensive science.
Back to the many worlds--I think your theory makes sense to me, but I wonder if it's a useful one. What good are solutions to problems if they were solved in some other offshoot of a universe I once belonged to? The many-worlds interpretation of QM is nice, but it just doesn't satisfy a pragmatist like me.
Thanks for your valuable input.
Bob Stiglitz
Yaron Tokayer
Very interesting. It sounds like you don't necessarily believe in an (attainable, at least) "scientific truth" that will end the quest to refine our science, but rather that humans will become satisfied with what we know, and won't feel the need to extend our knowledge. Meaning, we will get to a point where our science does enough for us and practically there won't be a need for more discovery--even if there are still things we don't understand! That's quite a unique view.
I've always wanted to believe that human curiosity and our drive to understand and probe the world is endless. You seem to be saying that it will run out and we will be complacent with how well we understand things. I guess time will tell.
Bob Stiglitz
Imagine being on the outside of an onion, you're on the first layer, but there are many layers you can't access from where you are.
We tend to associate 'scientific truth' with 'what we have access to environmentally'. We can speculate that perhaps there may be environments we can't reach from our limited space-time dimension we exist in. Now I know that sounds a bit 'mystical' and I don't mean to be, I'm just trying to say that we tend to want to believe everything encompassing the whole of existence is 'accessible' to us, this may not be the case.
george lockwood 20+
Ben Jarvis 50+
the atom is a classic example. we keep discovering 'all' there is to know about them, then we discover that there are further divisions to the parts we know about. i wonder what a quark might consist of?
Yaron Tokayer
My grandfather likes to say: "If you don't know what you don't know, then you'll never know."
Ben Jarvis 50+
in my experience i've found that a lot of arguments happen because of people who don't know that they don't know or are working under the false assumption that they know. eg funding the space program vs cutting funding - "it's just a waste of money to go to mars, there's nothing there!"
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
My Grandfather says, "there is no stupid question, only stupid people".
Yep, my life ain't been an e-z ride.
Joseph Ariel Stern
I like to think that there are plethora of things that are still undiscovered and will probably remain undiscovered for hundreds of years. Obviously, as we progress each year into the future, we are converging on some form of close, but our Earth is such a remarkable place, and that endpoint is distances away.
I am no expert in quantum physics, but if Kelvin and von Jolly believe their fields is left completely discovered, there are many other scientific fields that are continuously growing and expanding. Alternative forms of energy will be constantly researched, technological advancements will always grow from year to year, theories will be accepted without ever being proven... I see no end. Therefore, I don't believe there is a curtain laid out for us to discover.
Neema Aggarwal
I like the point you made about new and emerging scientific fields continuously growing. I do feel like no matter how much we learn, we simply uncover more unanswered questions. In any time period, it is hard to imagine a world of which we know so little. Even in the time of Jolly and Kelvin, it must have felt as though they had explained so much, learned so much about how the world works, what could possibly be left? Even now, it is hard to imagine what earth-shattering discovery could come next. I definitely feel that although we may be converging in some sense, it could also be thought of as diverging because each breakthrough we make simply opens a door to a thousand more potential breakthroughs.
Swetha Chandrasekar
I completely agree with both of you. I believe that there is an ever expanding list of questions that are yet be answered, and that it grows with every new discovery made. If I were to describe what I imagine to be the "end" of scientific discovery, I would bring up two concepts: mimicry and regeneration. It is said that only truly know a subject or a concept when you can teach it to someone else. Likewise, I think the end of science will arrive when every system can be reproduced artificially or not. Being able to regenerate or build any existing system (this includes neural signals, digestive and circulatory systems, etc in organisms) means that ultimate understanding of the system.
Even at that point, the never ended search for ultimate efficiency begins where a system can be redefined and rebuilt over and over again to achieve the highest efficiency model. There is always more work to be done!