Science fifty years hence?

[hallenrm]

What is your opinion, fifty years from today, science -- that includes the theories it considers valid and the methods used to prove or disprove them-- will be the same as today?

[Jay-qu]

Surely there will be some differences. 50 years could do a lot, consider the 50 years from Einstiens prime. Or it could not do much at all.. there have been quiet times in the past. But I lean towards something happening since there is a much larger emphasis on science in modern society as it is driving us as a technology driven race.

[Boerseun]

I don't think anything would change as far as the method goes. Our methodical approach to science is pretty much the same now as it was a hundred years ago.

However, I do believe that scientists will specialise further and further until they're boffins in such a minute science field, that there would be a real danger of science fragmenting towards the point of chaos.

In the old days you had people with a very broad scientific view and understanding, and I think this was possible only because the knowledge in any given field was relatively shallow. But the more we probe Nature, the deeper our knowledge goes - which of course implies that it would be harder and harder to keep up to speed with changes and advances in more than a few fields.

So as far as the Scientific community goes, we might end up with a situation where there are people who exist at the broad level of multi-disciplinary understanding, who only exist in order to bring the specialists together. The specialists would have dug so deep into their discipline that when they are faced with a problem that might be solved only through collaborating with another scientist in another field, they won't have any idea who the leaders in those fields are. So they would consult with the 'science couplers' who have a shallow, but broad understanding to get them in contact with the relevant specialists.

I think a broad understanding that also cuts deep into all fields have already become impossible due to information overload.

[Zythryn]

I had to choose other.
I believe the theory's that are 'in the lead' may well change. However I don't believe the scientific method will change at all.
I agree with B that further specialization seems likely. However, I think there are some issues that will require individual scientists to become more generalized.

Evolution and Global Warming are the two issues in particular that come to mind. A good understanding of those topics requires and/or is strengthened by an understanding of a number of different disciplines.

This may show itself in a more organized level of 'scientific managers' whose job it is to relate theories to the public/government. They could collate the research in various specifics (geology, climatology, oceanography, solar climatology, etc) and relate them to the government/public.

[TheBigDog]

In fifty years scientific method will be the same as today. However, there will be several advances that will change the way science is practiced. The biggest will be in simulation. In fifty years we will have developed such sophisticated computer models that what today is laboratory work exclusive to those with access to expensive equipment will be available to pretty much anyone who is interested in doing it. There will still be a breakoff point where real world experimentation must take place, but it will be exclusive to areas where accurate behavioral modeling cannot be simulated.

I also anticipate answers to what are currently complicated fundamental questions about the universe. And computers powerful enough that complex mathmatics would be workable at a more summary level, and interpreted for understanding by the software.

The tools available to my great grand children will boggle the minds of people today with their sophistication and capabilities. But like all things, they are limited by the human capability to apply the knowledge gained into useful work. Although I anticipate big gains in that area too.

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Can't even think about it. 50 years ago, they had all sorts of visions and ideas as to what "might be" today. While the method of science should remain largely the same, topics about which we can currently conceive as well as the outcomes of our knowledge at that point is pretty unfathomable.

[Spiked Blood]

One would hope that science has changed in fifty years. That it does not become restrained within the confines of its own belief. That that belief in one thing can limit our understanding of what might be. That as the universe changes, our ideas change with it.

Actually, I suspect that science is already bogged down by rules it has created, and because of that new ideas are few and far between.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Actually, I suspect that science is already bogged down by rules it has created, and because of that new ideas are few and far between.

This is the direct opposite of my view. There are a couple of millions of scientists in this world. A huge portion of them live in free countries, have academic jobs and are free to make up their own mind. I see new ideas all over the place (but then I do study innovation...).

Still, I voted #1 because I believe "science" will be what it is today, although the knowledge will hopefully be vastly different.

[learnin to learn]

more technology, beter equipment, and a few new theories or mabye even laws!

[TheFaithfulStone]

I don't care, as long as I get my freakin' flying car.

Actually, I think InfiniteNow has an excellent point. Either in fifty years science will be largely the same as it is now, plus some (potentially large) refinements, but it will not be fundamentally different. OR it will be fundamentally different and we cannot even IMAGINE what it will be.

For example, extrapolating twenty years from 1920 to 1940 - not particularly difficult. The technology advanced but it didn't alter really radically. From 1940 to 1960? MAJOR changes - men in space, the atomic bomb, etc, etc. From 1960 to 1980? What? Uhhh - the moon landing, but it was predictable by 1960. From 1980 to 2000? The Intarweb!

So, sure, it's a tautology to say that either the future is predictable or it isn't - but it's also true - if there are no "wildcard" developments - prediction isn't terribly difficult. If there are - then you can't predict it by definition.

TFS