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?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

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?

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.
B) 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]

Originally Posted by GAHD

Revolution: examples;
A) Moving from newtonian mechanics to general and then special relativity.
B) 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]

you got a point Alon

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

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.