$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')I don't understand this part. You seem to be saying that, even in the absence of resource limitations, there is some fundamental limitation inherent within science/technology itself. Just as an imaginative exercise, what happens when science grinds to a halt? How would people doing work in science at the time perceive the "barrier"?
PeakOil is You
Has Sci-Fi created a mindset of unending progression?
by johnmarkos » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 13:09:46
They will find themselves seized by an uncontrollable impulse to loaf off and quit with the science already. Instead, they will want to go home and take naps. If they resist this impulse, their hands will fail to move and their neurons will cease firing.
It's sort of like Lucretius's imaginary space traveler, who, when he gets to the edge of the universe and attempts to throw a spear, has a failure of nerve and goes home.
-
johnmarkos - Tar Sands
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: San Francisco, California
by nero » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 13:44:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I') don't understand this part. You seem to be saying that, even in the absence of resource limitations, there is some fundamental limitation inherent within science/technology itself. Just as an imaginative exercise, what happens when science grinds to a halt? How would people doing work in science at the time perceive the "barrier"?
I was suggesting that the economics will step in and halt the scientific inquiry. The "Barrier" would be the inability to extract further dollars from people to fund the research they really want to do. This is a very common phenomena since most all scientists have to compromise their plans to fit their budget. At some point, however, some experiments will be deemed too expensive and trivial to be performed by anyone. The recent decision by the Bush administration to cut funding for the Voyager deep space project might be an example of the Barrier creeping up.
If I was to speculate on what it would feel like to be a scientist in that future age of discovery when science has hit the "Barrier", I would say that there would be a profound respect for long established theories. Most scientists would devote their time looking for and filling in the gaps which may have been missed in the past. Some iconoclasts may continue to believe they can improve on the established theories but would be frustrated by the inability to get anyone interested enough to fund their research. There might then be a crystalization of knowledge and a turning away from the scientific method. The aliens in David Brin's Startide series had this attitude towards science.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
-
nero - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario
by johnmarkos » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 13:58:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '
')I was suggesting that the economics will step in and halt the scientific inquiry. The "Barrier" would be the inability to extract further dollars from people to fund the research they really want to do. This is a very common phenomena since most all scientists have to compromise their plans to fit their budget. At some point, however, some experiments will be deemed too expensive and trivial to be performed by anyone. The recent decision by the Bush administration to cut funding for the Voyager deep space project might be an example of the Barrier creeping up.
')I was suggesting that the economics will step in and halt the scientific inquiry. The "Barrier" would be the inability to extract further dollars from people to fund the research they really want to do. This is a very common phenomena since most all scientists have to compromise their plans to fit their budget. At some point, however, some experiments will be deemed too expensive and trivial to be performed by anyone. The recent decision by the Bush administration to cut funding for the Voyager deep space project might be an example of the Barrier creeping up.
Does new science have to be expensive? It was only a hundred years ago that Einstein wrote papers in his spare time while working at the Swiss patent office. We know where that lead.
-
johnmarkos - Tar Sands
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: San Francisco, California
by nero » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 14:18:14
Not all "new science" right now is expensive (some is) but there is a general trend towards science becoming more expensive. Your amateur scientist who performs useful science like Galileo or Newton is a rarity nowadays. I am certainly extrapolating the diminishing returns trend well out into the future when I speculate about encountering a barrier but does anyone argue that we are not encountering diminishing returns on our scientific investments?
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
-
nero - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario
by PenultimateManStanding » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 21:22:20
The trend towards greater expense in 'big science' isn't the only factor at play, which is what I was alluding to. This is from Acquiring Genomes by Lynn Margulis, a book detailing the notion that evolutionary change is not a matter of gradualism due to natural selection of random mutations but rather the end result of greater levels of symbiosis of organisms progressing from behavioral to metabolic and finally to genetic symbiosis. After noting how much research never gets out due to fragmentation in the scientific community she goes on to say: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince the 1980's many biological science departments have splintered further into molecular versus organisimal biology, a move that further exacerbates misunderstanding. The relevant information on species origins is scattered across more than a dozen fields, each with its own esoteric language or languages. . . biochemistry, cell biology, invertebrate zoology, metabolism, molecular evolution, microbial ecology, nutrition, paleontology, protistology, sedimentary geology, and virology are all relevant to deciphering the origins of species. Most of these fields, black boxes to the public as well as graduate students remain mysterious even to many scientists who practice evolutionary biology today.
This is a situation that can only lead to confusion and ultimately collapse of the current practice of science. If we are able to deal with the oil depletion issue and continue then science is going to have to change. I would guess that new fields of synthesis will open up where the accumulated knowledge is brought together. All the accumulated knowledge is going to have to be sifted and integrated somehow. All these specialized fields that don't communicate with each other but rather splinter into ever greater degrees of specialization is a recipe for disaster.-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
