Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
June 14, 2011 at 10:58pm
My father reflects upon the expectations he once held for scientific inquiry and what he imagined we would know in the year 2011. We find ourselves, he says, without the unifying, powerful theories he expected to see by now.
Instead, he suggests, we're in "slack-jawed perplexity."
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
I'm an historian of medieval Arabic.
At 27 I thought I only needed fill in the gaps.
At 33 I realized there was more to learn than I'd thought.
At 45 it was clear that neither I nor anyone else yet knows anything.
Philology recapitulates ontogeny.
Apr '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Everywhere I look, I see what the Scientific Method has done for our way of life and what we believe we are capable of, for good or for awesome.
In the long-since past, the only source of power was God. Now we are all gods, if we but choose to think and act. No wonder we were banned from Heaven after eating from the tree of Knowledge. Given enough time, we would have owned the place. We may still own it as this party is only just getting started. Soon, we will be making our own animals and plants and people and there really isn't any way to stop it: We will create worlds because that is the image we were made in. Is it not?
May '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Nice example of slack-jawed perplexity in response to Claire's directing gestures. "Huh? What are you doing over there? Is it a mosquito? A seizure? What?" Which by striking coincidence were the words I uttered in reaction to Tom Friedman's latest inexplicably published work.
I think Hari Seldon could explain a lot of these grand unified theories were he in attendance (or is he?). But that's top secret work for the good of all mankind. Not many are allowed to see all the of equation at once.
Nov '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
@Kesbar, your comment got me to thinking. First, pardon a pedant. The tree was the tree of the knowledge of good & evil - very important qualifier. The point being that Adam & Eve already possessed immense knowledge - they possessed the knowledge of Elohim and had daily communication with Him. If that wasn't access to knowledge, I guess I don't know what else would be.
Further, at the tower of Babel, YHWH see that "the whole earth had one language.." and they were building a city and a tower to reach unto heaven in an effort to deify themselves. YHWH says: "the people is one, and have all one language; and this have they begun to do. And now will they be hindered in nothing that they meditate doing. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech."
And Solomon, reputed to be the wisest of men said: "There is nothing new under the sun."
History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme (unknown author although attributed to Mark Twain).
Perhaps folks are look in the wrong places.
Edited on June 14, 2011 at 11:56pmMar '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
I think that as governments and international organizations became more involved in funding scientific research, that research became necessarily more politicized. Since politics is a zero-sum game, science became more zero-sum as well. Contrary to conventional wisdom, winner-take-all (or -most) endeavors may well inhibit the development of unifying, powerful theories.
This is probably all for the good. After all, theories are merely theoretical, despite their popularity or “power.”
As H.L. Mencken observed,“A professor must have a theory as a dog must have fleas.”
Nov '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
@Claire,
I love your dad's work. A great thinker and nonconformist to the status quo.
Edited on June 15, 2011 at 12:02amSep '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
"My own suspicion is that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose." - John B.S. Haldane H/T Terence Mc Kenna
Jun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Darwin's theory was published 152 years ago. The motorized airplane took flight at Kitty Hawk 108 years ago. The structure of the DNA molecule was discovered 58 years ago. The suggestion for the existence of the quark was presented 47 years ago. Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon 42 years ago. A fairly complete picture of the human genome was completed 8 years ago. Scientists are now beginning to identify planets beyond our solar system that may be able to sustain life.
Isn't it depressing how humankind has just been slacking off?
Is it harmful, embarrassing, or just an annoyance that no one has presented a unified theory? Is it a failure of science? Or is it just science not yet completed? Or are we hunting for snarks?
"To seek it with thimbles, to seek it with care;
To pursue it with forks and hope;
To threaten its life with a railway-share;
To charm it with smiles and soap!
"For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
Be caught in a commonplace way.
Do all that you know, and try all that you don't:
Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"
Jun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
I paid my bucks, I want my Buck Rogers? Where is my flying car?!
Nov '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Claire,
Have been a fan of your Dad's since Expelled.
Thanks for sharing this video.
Olive
Dec '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
As we all well know, the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is 42. However, the question was not well formed. The question to which Deep Thought gave the correct answer is, "What release of The Sims are we inhabiting?"
Do not attempt to look up fast enough to see the green avatar gem above your head. You'll only strain your neck.
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Science has a grave fear of proving the existence of God; as big as the fear religion once held that science might prove the nonexistence of God.
The left once excoriated the Pope for holding that we shouldn't look further back than the Big Bang. Now that Stephen Hawking says the same thing, the search for truth may be stalled, awaiting the advances of braver people than us.
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Absolutely fascinating. More!
Apr '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
I love the phrase "slack-jawed perplexity." And I hate to disagree with you Stuart but everyone knows the correct answer is 47.
http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/pcmfl00/1.shtml
Oct '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
we were promised jet packs, transporter, phasers on stun, and the cure for the common cold. science slackers.
Aug '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Please. I read once that if we took the sum of human knowledge developed prior to 1985 and compare it to the knowledge developed between 1985 and 1990 we would find that it had doubled.
The problem with jetpacks, transporter phasers, et al is that while the science fiction writer could conceive of them in the 1960's, the mechanics (or economics, as in the case of the jetpack) still had to be worked out. The best example of the jetpack is this one, the Martin Jetpack which was recently tested to 5k feet with a parachute return system.
This report on the information created is the one I quote when I talk about technology revolutions.
The singularity is fast approaching.
Nov '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
I am reeling with the realization that Claire, (whose writing and voice I have enjoyed immensely since I found Richochet last year) has such a cool Dad who wrote A Tour of the Calculus and other extremely well-written popular books about math....and I never made the connection. I second Peter's call for more, please, more!
May '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
I don't think your father's description of Chomsky's ideas about language is accurate. Chomsky's position was that language makes infinite use of FINITE means. Because it has FINITE means you CAN begin to describe it. You have words and rules and the rules are fairly limited in number. And some of the rules are hardwired in at birth, so languages cannot vary infinitely. Chomsky's position has evolved over the years, and I haven't followed it closely, but I suspect he would still generally endorse this formulation.
Edited on June 15, 2011 at 5:52amMar '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno: Science has a grave fear of proving the existence of God; as big as the fear religion once held that science might prove the nonexistence of God.
The left once excoriated the Pope for holding that we shouldn't look further back than the Big Bang. Now that Stephen Hawking says the same thing, the search for truth may be stalled, awaiting the advances of braver people than us.
Actually, Stephen Hawking has recently talked about before the Big Bang (although, of course, there is no time before the Big Bang :). He claims that God is not necessary, as the elusive "theory of everything" explains everything. So, these things go in cycles, as do Universes...
Jun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
We are not gods and we will never be gods; nor will we takeover a celestial heaven or create a heaven on earth or any other place in the universe.
I posit that our engineering is progressing apace while our science is becoming more complete. I agree in advance that we may yet be surprised, but on a fundamental level we may be approaching scientific limits. This is not to say that out application of the science we know may not continue to expand, but the fundamental science that underlies these applications will not change much more.
Oh! I love science, and hope I am wrong on this score, but once a unifying theory is proved, for example, what will be left for physicist to prove? That one discovery often opens science to other discoveries is indisputable, but will these discoveries open the doors to "new" science of will they only provide new opportunities for engineers?