- #1
BWV
- 1,504
- 1,830
John Horgan's book The End of Science was published nearly 25 years ago. This retrospective from 2006 he states
https://www.discovermagazine.com/th...rontier-are-we-reaching-the-limits-of-science
Not much has happened since 2006 to show that John was wrong. His premise, as far as I read it, is that we are unlikely to see more great fundamental discoveries like General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or Evolution. and likely already know nearly everything it is possible to know, at least within our lifetimes. Less clear to me why this should be true in biology, where things like CRISPR which was barely understood in 2006, or epigenetics or the gut flora all seem promising and untapped new areas. Physics, as an outsider, on the other hand appears to be a fully mature discipline, with no major new discoveries in 50 years since the Standard Model was developed.
Optimists insist that revolutionary discoveries surely lie just around the corner. Perhaps the big advance will spring from physicists' quest for a theory of everything; from studies of "emergent" phenomena with many moving parts, such as ecologies and economies; from advances in computers and mathematics; from nanotechnology, biotechnology, and other applied sciences; or from investigations of how brains make minds. "I can see problems ahead of all sizes, and clearly many of them are soluble," says physicist and Nobel laureate Philip Anderson (who, in 1999, coined the term Horganism to describe "the belief that the end of science . . . is at hand"). On the flip side, some skeptics contend that science can never end because all knowledge is provisional and subject to change.
For the 10th anniversary of The End of Science I wanted to address these new objections. What I find is that the limits of scientific inquiry are more visible than ever. My goal, now as then, is not to demean valuable ongoing research but to challenge excessive faith in scientific progress.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/th...rontier-are-we-reaching-the-limits-of-science
Not much has happened since 2006 to show that John was wrong. His premise, as far as I read it, is that we are unlikely to see more great fundamental discoveries like General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or Evolution. and likely already know nearly everything it is possible to know, at least within our lifetimes. Less clear to me why this should be true in biology, where things like CRISPR which was barely understood in 2006, or epigenetics or the gut flora all seem promising and untapped new areas. Physics, as an outsider, on the other hand appears to be a fully mature discipline, with no major new discoveries in 50 years since the Standard Model was developed.