Contemplate the next major revolution in science

[hallenrm]

Thomas Kuhn, a famous philisopher of science, authored a very famous book The structure of scientific revolutions.

 

Indeed significant developments in the realm of science are marked by periodic revolutions. Most of us would be aware of such revolutions: Relativity, quantum physics, genetic code, elecromagnetic radiations, semiconductors are a few that have marked the past century.

 

New developments in science are reported almost every other day, but are they leading towards a revolution of scientific thought?

 

What would be the next major revolution in science? Will it be in the realm of physics, biology or chemistry?

 

Can we venture out some thoughts? :hihi: :shade: :) :)

[Michaelangelica]

Thomas Kuhn, a famous philisopher of science, authored a very famous book The structure of scientific revolutions.

 

What would be the next major revolution in science? Will it be in the realm of physics, biology or chemistry?

 

Can we venture out some thoughts? :hihi: :shade: :) :)

 

I was talking to a friend the other day who said there had been no major scientific advances in the last 50++ years or so.

"I was gobsmacked what about DNA etc!" I said

He said all we have done is refine and develop and tease out more information from discoveries already made.

He felt we haven't made any really significant breakthroughs only refined our knowledge of discoveries already made

 

Since that conversation I am beginning to think that maybe he was right

(He discounts Einstein -who he says "was wrong"!)

Mendal put genetics on the map in 1870 or so etc etc

 

What do you think?

[Eclogite]

Plate tectonics completely revolutionised geology. It not only integrated disparate, ambiguous and confusing observations, but provided deep insights into unexpected processes and their consequences. That revolution is barely forty years old.

 

The work of Gould and others has brought about a less obvious, but ultimately higly significant modification of the Modern (sic) Synthesis of Evolution. This revolution is less than thirty years old.

 

Our understanding of the mechanisms of planetary formation has been utterly transformed in the last five decades, and remains, arguably, in a state of turmoil.

 

Your friend may feel that understanding the geophysics that have made the Earth a fit home for humanity; the processes that allowed humanity to evolve; and the mechanisms that created a stable planet in the 'Goldilocks' zone, are merely filling in the details. I would disagree.

[ronthepon]

What is exactly implied by the phrase : scientific revolution?

 

Does it refer to a completely new scientific method?

Or does it have to do with a grand scale scientific discovery or method?

[GAHD]

Revolution: examples;

A) Moving from newtonian mechanics to general and then special relativity.

:eek2: Moving from the greek beleif that life developped via abiogenisis(mice appeared in grain, maggots appeared in rotting meat, people 'got pregnant', etc...) to the theory of life begetting life, evolution, to genetics, etc...

 

I propose the next big revolution comes when we learn to manipulate DNA like we do computer code; to the point we can write our own "programs" instead of just doing cut&paste operations on what we've found.

[Alon]

Revolution: examples;

A) Moving from newtonian mechanics to general and then special relativity.

:eek2: Moving from the greek beleif that life developped via abiogenisis(mice appeared in grain, maggots appeared in rotting meat, people 'got pregnant', etc...) to the theory of life begetting life, evolution, to genetics, etc...

 

I propose the next big revolution comes when we learn to manipulate DNA like we do computer code; to the point we can write our own "programs" instead of just doing cut&paste operations on what we've found.

i think in A you got confused between GR and SR, because SR came first ofcourse.

 

thomas kuhn describes scientifical revolution as a change/shift of paradigm, which is the scheme of work and belief in a specific field in science.

[hallenrm]

To me the discovery of electromagnetic waves was indeed one of the greatest scientific revolution. Before, it communicating across long distances, as much as several light years was unimaginable.

 

I would like to believe that the next major scientific revolution will expand the horizons of communication even more. It could be an acceptance, a proof, for telepathy.

[coberst]

Webster’s Dictionary often has more than one definition for a word. I am using the word ‘science’ to mean “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study”.

 

It appears that Kuhn would qualify a new paradigm as being a scientific revolution.

 

The natural sciences—normal science—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” move forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.” Practitioners of normal science are expert puzzle-solvers. “One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions…One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving.”

 

As I understand the matter, Thomas Kuhn is master of the science of paradigm. Everything I read indicates that most all qualified experts consider Kuhn is King.

 

I conclude that the sciences of business, economics and medicine are also ‘normal science’. I suspect that at least 90 % of our graduates of higher education have a degree in one of the normal sciences. Less than 10 % of our graduates have degrees in ‘abnormal science’.

 

Practitioners of normal science have:

1) A paradigm that defines the theory, rules and standards of practice.

2) Expertise as puzzle-solvers. Puzzles are assumed to have solutions.

3) A criterion for choosing problems for solution.

4) Concrete problems for solution i.e. problems with solutions and only lack of ingenuity causes failure.

5) Problems wherein a great deal more than ingenuity is vital for good responses

6) To deal with problems as they are placed on our plate. We cannot choose our problems.

7) Often constructed matters so that a problem appears as a matter for normal science.

 

Practitioners of abnormal sciences must depend upon their combined wisdom to muddle through problems dropped in their laps by fate. We all, in our normal routine of living, are practitioners of abnormal science. Our educational system offers all of us little preparation for the problems we encounter in life.

 

Since we are fortunate enough to live in a liberal democracy we must, in one form or another, ignore or make judgement upon all public policy. What must we, who recognize ourselves to be dependent upon reason to guide our every move, accomplish in order to dialogue in wisdom?

 

 

It seems that almost all domains of knowledge wish to emulate Science. Science for most people is technology and if questioned we would probably find that science means physics. We have placed Science on a very high pedestal because technology has been so successful. Every domain of knowledge wishes to be as good as Science.

 

I suspect that the way to judge how well a domain of knowledge is like science is to discover if it does or does not have a paradigm. Like Kuhn notes in his book that without a paradigm any knowledge is as good as any other. Paradigm converts chaos into system. The system of science is puzzle solving.

 

In the essay “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” in the book “Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge” Thomas Kuhn details a fundamental difference between himself and Sir Karl Popper. This fundamental difference rests on the concept “puzzle”. It relates to the difference between solving puzzles versus problem solving.

 

All puzzles have solutions. (According to Kuhn) All problems do not have solutions. We have crossword puzzles, math puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, chess puzzles, etc. All domains of knowledge that are guided by paradigms contain scientists who solve puzzles. Science moves forward primarily as a matter of accretion rather than giant steps. This is why science is so successful. Only under revolutionary conditions does science move forward in leaps. A good example might be that Newton’s Law of Gravity was supreme for about 250 years until Einstein presented his Special Theory of Relativity in 1900.

 

 

A good web site for a study of Thomas Kuhn's theory http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

[GAHD]

:doh: you got a point Alon

[CraigD]

What would be the next major revolution in science? Will it be in the realm of physics, biology or chemistry?

My vote is that the next big thing will be in Neuropsychology, and true Artificial Intelligence. I expect (or at least hope) that a combination of advances in functional brain imaging and computer modeling will result the beginning of a detailed, molecular-level understanding of brain function, at the same time that advances in computing hardware will provide a platform for programs based on this understanding.

 

If my speculation is correct, the revolution that follows may be less a matter of what Science is being done (the relm), how it is being done (the paradigm), but what kind of intelligences (natural or artificial) are doing it. Many current scientists and students of the progress of Science have commented that many of the most promising scientific theories, such as string theory, seem to simply be too difficult for any human being. True AI might change this.

[Kayra]

In a similar light to CraigD, but will likely precede it, will be the ability to evolve best solutions to many problems. (including AI)

 

We are already beginning to see what a system like this can do. The solutions themselves, gleamed not from conscious directed thought, but random chance and time, will provide solutions to problems that even the most imaginative person would never have foreseen. I suspect we will spend a tremendous amount of time trying to understand the solutions and why they work, and in the process, learn much of our universe.

[hallenrm]

In a similar light to CraigD, but will likely precede it, will be the ability to evolve best solutions to many problems.

 

I really like this part of your post, "ability to evolve best solutions to many problems". My first impression of your statement is that you are referring to many solutions to any problem, if that is so, my reaction is as follows:

The major limitation of science today,in my opinion, is that it is largely monotheist, that is, it is usually assumed that there is one and only one answer/explanation to any problem.

 

Accepting the many solution paradigm can indeed lead to a true scientific revolution!!!!!!:confused: :hihi: :lol: :) :)

[Kayra]

 

Accepting the many solution paradigm can indeed lead to a true scientific revolution!!!!!!:) :( :) :) :)

 

My point precisely. The only limitation to this system will be the person putting in the parameters of the required sollution.

[HydrogenBond]

The next big discovery is already here, but is getting off to a slow start. Cells can be modelled in terms of the hydrogen bonding hydrogen. This one variable is common to all the molecular diversity of life from DNA, RNA, protein, water, etc. It the basis for cellular structures and dynamics.

 

The problem is that the inventer is on the outside.

[Kayra]

The next big discovery is already here, but is getting off to a slow start. Cells can be modelled in terms of the hydrogen bonding hydrogen. This one variable is common to all the molecular diversity of life from DNA, RNA, protein, water, etc. It the basis for cellular structures and dynamics.

 

The problem is that the inventer is on the outside.

 

Could you expand on that one?

[HydrogenBond]

Currently biology and the life sciences are concerned with all the chemicals of life. There are so many bio-chems that accurate cell simulations become next to impossible. The hydrogen bond approach reduces things down to one variable, i.e, hydrogen. The biochems set the dynamic and static states of the hydrogen bonding, and by modelling the hydrogen bonding one will be also modelling the biochems.

 

As a visual image, imgine if one had a picture of DNA and colored all the hydrogen red and everything else green. Next, put on green glasses. All one would see is hydrogen bonding in space, some static, some vibrating, other breaking and reforming. This is the heart of DNA beating. If we do this for the whole cell, we have a hydrogen ghost (pardon my choice of words it not meant to be metaphysical but visual discriptive), that reflects everything going on in the cell using only one variable. The model is scalable to multicellular modelling, since water and hydrogen bonding is continuous throughout all levels of the living state ,and one only has to worrry about one varaible. This can open a new door for the life sciences.

 

The problem the inventor is having is that there is no peer review process in place because the approach is new. It does not quite fit in any existing category of research. Being on the outside makes it difficult to create a meeting of the minds where a unoffical review may be possbile and where experimental resources would be available to make it official.

 

Revolutions in science are great after they get rolling. The word revolution implies change in the status quo, which is not welcome at first.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I'm not sure that make any sense at all.

 

DNA isn't bound with hydrogen but with nucleotides like Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytocine... [spelling apolgies, my biology is rusty]

 

Which I think are molecularly bound with Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Hydrogen.

 

I don't think that modeling JUST the hydrogen bonding is going to do any good. That, plus the fact that the characteristics of water, say, cannot be predicted by knowing everything there is to know about it's constituent parts. I suspect this is MORE true at a macro-molecular level.

 

That said, I think the next "big break through" is a break through in materials science, which will enable us to "engineer" these things that we thought were impossible.

 

-Fast acting shape metal alloys.

-Useful Carbon Nanotubes

-Super High energy density fuels.

 

TFS