Science Isn't Wavering, It Never Will

        Science is not diminishing in any field, it is simply evolving with the modern times. To say it clearly, science is not “losing its luster” like how The Atlantic suggests it is. By comparing 21st century breakthroughs to 20th century breakthroughs, it has done nothing but feign regression in science and cast doubt to readers as to whether science is worth all the funding and research. Just because less Nobel prizes have been handed out in recent history does NOT mean there hasn't been groundbreaking discoveries made. Modern science takes so much time, money, and effort to generate results BECAUSE we are trying exceptionally difficult things. Not to say the discoveries made in the 20th century were by any means easy to discover, but as Paul Dirac put it, it was a time when “even second-rate physicists could make first-rate discoveries.” 

        The findings made back then were things that could be discovered with simple (using the term lightly, they were ingenious but ultimately simple) tools and by carefully examining the real world with one’s eyes. However, to make advancements in the field of quantum mechanics, for example, you can’t simply go out and observe quarks, you need technologically advanced tools that often cost millions of dollars to construct and operate. To put in layman’s terms, 20th century science was feasible to do without the modern technology that we have currently. We’ve covered a lot of the “entry level” science, the rudimentary science that set out the foundation for modern science, but now that we’re tackling the nitty gritty aspects, of course it will take more time and funding to make noteworthy discoveries. All breakthroughs are significant, it shouldn’t matter if one is the byproduct of the other, that doesn’t make the 2nd any less than the first breakthrough. 

        The same article mentions how although the optimistic view on science’s progression is indeed inspiring, it’s time to accept that it has diminishing returns, and although I can sort of understand where it’s coming from, actually no I can’t understand where it’s coming from at all. I think its stupid to say science isn’t progressing recently or to compare it to discoveries made a century ago. Science is always advancing, and it does nothing to compare discoveries. All it does is downplay the hard work of modern scientists by insinuating their findings don’t compare to Albert Einstein's general relativity or something like that. I know that wasn't the true intention of the article, but it being constantly repeated sure made it feel like it was. 

        As for the other article by FiveThirtyEight, I very much agree with the points that were made in it. Science isn’t easy in the slightest, and the need to succeed and make a name for yourself in the field incentivizes many people to fabricate findings and or tweak variables to get the results they’re looking for. One can easily look at these scientists embellishing their findings and use it as more proof that science is losing its meaning, but the article truly does a great job in explaining that is far from the case. Ivan Oransky, a physician and editorial director at MedPage Today, said it best,  “One of the things we’ve been campaigning for is for scientists, journals and universities to stop acting as if fraud is something that never happens”. These things happen for a reason and that reason is NOT that science has lost all meaning and is in a regression. Science has been and always will be humanity’s greatest asset, and just because it’s gotten harder and slowed down in recent years doesn’t make it meaningless. 

- Dhihan Ahmed