Science fifty years hence?

[Southtown]

Thanks :lol:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, Southtown, what's the point?

 

The first one sounds legit - the second one even YOU seem to think is a bit kooky, and the third one is what? Some kind of biblical archaeology conspiracy by the Saudis?

 

I don't get it...

[Tormod]

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that scientific advancements are often made by younger minds. Is that because they are not bound by that belief? A younger mind is simply more open minded because it is not bound by knowledge it believes to be true.

 

I don't know. In certain sciences, like mathematics, most people do their best work before they are 30. But science is not about the young and the bright - it's about all the tedious and endless work done by people who stay at it for decades.

 

A main reason why scientists may seem more open minded at a young age (we need to define young, so let's say "under 30"). is that they are probably still at university working on science projects, and are not burdened with husbands and children.

 

At 35, I can tell you that almost ALL scientists I talk to (most work within astrophysics, meteorology, space, or atmospheric sciences) are at least my age and often 10-20 years older.

 

No mind can work in isolation, and I think it is a mistake to believe that the scientific discovery and breakthrough is the arena of the young. It is very much the arena of the established scientists.

 

One factor that is good for the "youngsters" may be strength to fight the system and not be bogged down in hierarchies and old habits. But the most brilliant people I meet are way above this anyway.

[hallenrm]

science is not about the young and the bright - it's about all the tedious and endless work done by people who stay at it for decades.

 

Agree cent percent! :lol:

 

A main reason why scientists may seem more open minded at a young age (we need to define young, so let's say "under 30"). is that they are probably still at university working on science projects, and are not burdened with husbands and children.

 

Partly true, part of the reason is also that they have not experienced as much frustration, when some established scientist just don't let them rise!

[Southtown]

Okay, Southtown, what's the point?

 

The first one sounds legit - the second one even YOU seem to think is a bit kooky, and the third one is what? Some kind of biblical archaeology conspiracy by the Saudis?

 

I don't get it...

I was just trying to elaborate on my statement, not spark a debate.

"

I would predict eventual freedom to excavate in certain parts of the world, and an eventual freedom to publish controversial findings against the will of any Supreme Councils of Antiquities.

" --

Southie

I think people will be forced to listen to science in the future. Science isn't always politically convenient. There were hurricane/levee warnings in Louisiana since the seventies. Global warming... what good is science if it's only utilized when it's convenient or profitable.

[hallenrm]

Science isn't always politically convenient. There were hurricane/levee warnings in Louisiana since the seventies. Global warming... what good is science if it's only utilized when it's convenient or profitable.

 

 

Now!! you are talking sense, and much more clearly!! :eek:

[Southtown]

I think people will be forced to listen to science in the future. Science isn't always politically convenient. There were hurricane/levee warnings in Louisiana since the seventies. Global warming... what good is science if it's only utilized when it's convenient or profitable.

Case in point:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/washington/17cnd-crawford.html

[hallenrm]

Let me cite yet another news in this context that reveals the state of science today and often shapes our beliefs;

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225733.100-big-pharma-calling-journals-shots.html

 

The point I am trying to make that with the advent of information and communication technology, in the last two decades, people have started realizing the importance of science education much more than ever before. This has the potential of changing the colour of science in near future.

[Southtown]

Let me cite yet another news in this context that reveals the state of science today and often shapes our beliefs;

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225733.100-big-pharma-calling-journals-shots.html

 

The point I am trying to make that with the advent of information and communication technology, in the last two decades, people have started realizing the importance of science education much more than ever before. This has the potential of changing the colour of science in near future.

A perfect example of the changes occurring as we speak. :eek: Widespread and instant communication of little stuff like that is bound to undermine the struggle amongst the powers that be.

[Tormod]

I do in all humbleness think it is meaningless to say "people will be forced to listen to science in the future". This will depend on who is in charge, ie it is a matter of politics. People may be forced to listen to rethoric, but not science - science is a tool, a path, not a spoken language. Politicians will use whatever they need for a cause, be it religion or science, or both.

[hallenrm]

science is a tool, a path, not a spoken language. Politicians will use whatever they need for a cause, be it religion or science, or both.

 

True, science is a tool, only very few people know to use this tool today and that is the reason why politicains can fool people so easily! :cup:

[HydrogenBond]

If one ever watches some of the science predictions from 50 years ago for today, science and technology has gotten slower than predicted. These predictions were based on an extrapolation of the pace at that time. We should be on Mars, Dick Tracey watch phones took an extra 20 years, etc. The slowing of the pace may have to do with specialization. Most new technologies bring many things together, which is better served via a generalist approach. Specialization causes one hand not to know what the other is doing making it harder to hold hands.

 

Specialization is sort of like the Henry Food assembly line. This is a good way to produce a high volume of science at a lower price. But the fancy sportcars like Farrari's are assembled the old fashion way, where a smaller group knows about the whole process. This is more expensive but does lead to superior products.

[stamarama]

I'm hoping that in fifty years science will have focussed on practical applications of new sources of energy with the goal of the betterment of life for the broad swath of humanity. I hope that science will have matured and aquired more wisdom, and that it wil have shed some of it's tendency toward intelletual arrogance; that it will work at the service of making life simpler and better.

 

G

[Tormod]

Most new technologies bring many things together, which is better served via a generalist approach. Specialization causes one hand not to know what the other is doing making it harder to hold hands.

 

I doubt that specialization is a real problem. If everyone walked around being DaVincis we'd have a problem. I think it is for the better that scientists can apply their skills in one or a few areas. None of these areas are isolated from the rest of their field.

 

It is *inevitable* that there will be people working on different things next door without your knowledge. This is more of a communication problem or maybe even a diversity bonus.

 

Specialization is sort of like the Henry Food assembly line. This is a good way to produce a high volume of science at a lower price.

 

First of all, the Henry Ford assembly line is an example of how existing people, ideas, and concepts were brought together. Henry Ford himself maintained that he had done "nothing new".

 

So I have problems seeing why specialization is a problem. If you are saying that we specialize too early, like in high school or even before, then I agree. But if we're talking later, I disagree.

 

A normal scientist will keep herself informed about things going on in the world and in her field (and related fields), read papers, journals, and attend conferences when possible.

 

Specialization is vital, IMHO, in order for science to progress. I doubt that we'd have discovered DNA, for example, without specialization.

 

50 years hence I hope to see perhaps a greater focus on specialization coupled with better ways to keep abreast of more fields (better access to information and people networks, perhaps).

[Tormod]

I hope that science will have matured and aquired more wisdom, and that it wil have shed some of it's tendency toward intelletual arrogance; that it will work at the service of making life simpler and better.

 

I'll be banned for trolling soon, but I still think it's pointless to talk about "science's tendency" and that "it" will work. Science is not a conscious being. It is what scientists do.

 

If you think scientists have a tendency towards intellectual arrogance, that's okay. But blame the people, not the tools.

[revolutionary_suicide652]

I believe that because of people like us science will expand and include for abstract ideas.I myself am going into the feild of biotechnologie and my believes differ from most scientist.I belieave that in fifty years not only science but our minds will advance tremendously!!!:eek_big: ;)

[stamarama]

Good point, though I find it hard to divorce the scientist from the science. And maybe therein lies a problem: if there is no "person" associated with a process, or a cause, or an organization, how can any their be any values, or accountability, or moral responsibility be applied to that "thing". It's like a corporation. A nuclear bomb, or bio-weapon, of flourocarbons, Nazi-like medical experiments are all perfectly acceptable because, as science, they can not have a good or bad value applied to them. They just "are"; they are merely tools. Can't hold the science responsible for anything. A tool is dead because it has no life. It takes a scientist to breathe life into science, and to be held responsible for the tool he, or she, discovers or creates.

 

So where science will be in 50 years may have much to to with where scientists are in 50 years.