Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The future of science

  1. #1 The future of science 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2
    What directions do you think that science is headed towards


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Common sense and intelligence as opposed to just intelligence.the more people have the mysterious gene called "common sense" the more advanced the human race will evolve! I just hope this "common sense" catches on among generations before the earlier ones blow eachother to kingdom come. CAUSE AND EFFECT PEOPLE!

    And as to where it's heading in a more literal sense: hopefully a lot of revising of classic physics. And quantum physics. And spacial reletivity. And...well, damn, physics needs a lot of revising! The problem is, no scientist has the balls to attempt it, because once your reputation is ruined, so is your career! It's like saying "there is no god" to people a thousand years ago. You'd be shot, hanged, burned, etc. In short, science needs more people who don't care about their damn reputation and cash flow that will start researching and questioning the "laws" made by previous scientists! It's not suppose to be a damn religion! Sheesh!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The future of science 
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsonn
    What directions do you think that science is headed towards
    Genetically improving cannabis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2
    No, seriously. Surely you guys can do better than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    The grail, of course, is the GUT. The Grand Unified Theory. This would tie all the sciences together into a single science. Complexity will make this a rather difficult achievement however.

    Other than that, the question really isn't answerable.
    There is no 'science'. There are, rather, the sciences.
    Each field of science is moving on its own.

    I suppose you could say that, in general, the sciences are moving towards more specialization. That is, each field of science is constantly bifurcating as more in-depth knowledge in each field leads to more precise areas of study within that field eventually necessitating a relabeling of the discipline.

    I suspect that after a good deal of this specializing, then a deal of generalizing will take place in which the fruits of the specializations are sewn together into a more general tapestry (with the Grail of the GUT everpresent in the minds of the stitchers.)

    Personally, I think there should be more research done on flatulence...
    Kidding.

    My personal field of interest is cognition, and I look forward to this particular science jumping forward in leaps and bounds in the next several decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsonn
    No, seriously. Surely you guys can do better than that.
    Seriously! Not on cannabis of course, but I think the scientific future is on genetics and nanotechnology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Two issues face science in the coming century or so.

    Invert Nexus has already mentioned the tendency to specialise. This leads, as the pundit said, to people knowing more and more, about less and less, until they wind up knowing everything, about absolutely nothing.

    This has to be tackled in some way. We need a methodology for assessing and integrating diverse fields. Will this be undertaken by a new type of generalist, who is trained in how to think in diverse ways, or is conducted by artificial intelligences in an all-guns-blazing brute force comparison of results from all different fields with each other. (Or more likely some combination of the two.) However it is done it is essential, or else science will simply sink without trace in a quicksand of data, with not a hint of knowledge or wisdom within it.

    Secondly we have to come up with a better system for thinking outside the box. Today breakthroughs can only occur when the established paradigm gets too shaky. This occurs long after there was clear (in retrospect) evidence it was doomed. But inertia keeps the old idea in place and careers are at risk if the status quo is challenged.
    Science has to develop a way that allows the current order to be challenged, yet constrains pointless excursions into the bizarre just for the sake of being different.

    So, while I see science continuing its advances - and technology advancing even faster - I believe the real challenges are methodological.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman .:Elusive.Neutrino:.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Coronado, CA
    Posts
    54
    Given sufficient time, science will be capable of providing definitive answers to philosophical questions in its final stages of usefulness.
    <i8b4uUnderground> d-_-b
    <BonyNoMore> how u make that inverted b?
    <BonyNoMore> wait
    <BonyNoMore> never mind
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •