The Final Frontier: Are We Really Headed to a Post-Scientific Era?


It’s terribly easy to forget how easy scientific advancements have made our lives. Right now I am sitting in a comfortably heated room, sheltered from today’s rain, while outlining this piece on a machine whose processing power far surpasses anything used to put a man on the moon, and yet I am able to stuff it into my bag as I rush out the door to class each morning. But, recent predictions regarding the scientific community and its progress have compelled me to think, what’s the point? We learn so much about science’s rapid progress in the past, but what’s happening now? Is it slowing down? And if it is, can an argument be made that science, as we know it, is reaching its end?

Nature has recently published findings that have determined that as the 21st century progresses, scientific findings are slowly becoming less and less disruptive. In other words, recent advancements in science, more specifically those within the last six decades are less likely to “break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions”. This study has led to the popularization of the argument that science is gradually moving towards a status of dormancy. Publications such as The Atlantic and FiveThirtyEight have established models attempting to highlight potential distinctions given belief in this worrying new idea. However, what gives anyone the right to judge the quality of any scientific discovery?

The general idea or purpose of science, especially when described by the general public, is a way in which to reveal inherent truths regarding reality. Though the problem arises when the concept of truth as a whole is considered in the first place. Essentially, who is to say our perceptions inhibit attempts to uncover objective scientific truths in the same way a sociologist might acknowledge personal biases when conducting certain experiments or surveys. This comparison is encompassed in postmodernism, which is a school of thought that, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is imbued with qualities that are skeptical of the ideas of absolute certainty found within the philosophical structures of modern sciences. In other words, it highlights the way subjectivity might play a large role in the way we might decide what sorts of things could be deemed scientifically objective or “the truth”. For instance, postmodernists would acknowledge certain social, cultural, or racial biases that scientists may have that might affect the way their methodology is conducted or the results they publish to the general public. This, in turn, would affect views regarding what would be deemed the “truth” given public perception and reliance on the objectivity of scientific experts. 

Overall, I do not mean to completely disregard any sort of scientific work but to simply use this philosophy when tackling the possibility of an end to disruptive science. Perception is essential to note when analyzing the aforementioned publications. While they describe a modern lack of disruptive theories in a manner similar to Einstein's General Relativity in the 20th century or Newton’s Optics in the 17th century, it is impossible to disregard the massive contributions that have recently been made in various scientific fields, particularly in physics and astronomy. Identifying the aforementioned theories as disruptive of the scientific environments of their times, it is only fair to classify achievements such as Professor Stephen Hawking's groundbreaking work regarding the properties of black holes, as well as more recently the achievement of stable fusion ignition as disruptive in a similar manner. All of these works change the way that their fields are conducted and the entire premise of being “disruptive” is completely dependent on the audience perceiving the scientific work. In the end, I would argue that disruptive science is not ending, nor will it ever end. Humans are too curious for that. Just like us, it will simply evolve and advance alongside the fields it encompasses.




Sources

“Huge New Study Confirms Science Ending! (Sort Of)”, John Horgan, Cross-Check: A Free Journal, 2023.  https://www.johnhorgan.org/blog/posts/42122 

“Papers and Patents are Becoming Less Disruptive Over Time”, Park, M., Leahey, E. & Funk, R.J, Nature 613, 138–144, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x 

"Postmodernism”, Aylesworth, Gary, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/postmodernism 

“Science is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck”, Patrick Collison, Michael Nielsen, The Atlantic, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665 

“Science Isn’t Broken”, Christie Aschwanden, FiveThirtyEight, 2015. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/#part1 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Molecules, Models, and Magic: The Exciting World of Computational Chemistry

Vrinda Modi I often spend time in a little cubicle in McLean in the freezing corporate cold wrapped in a blanket in the Hoboken summers sipping on free coffee from the office above. It almost always tastes like chalk, but the routine is so embedded in me. Hence, this is the perfect opportunity to talk a little more about my research in computational chemistry here at Stevens and the advances I expect in the next few years. This field excites me because it bridges my interest in chemistry with modern computing techniques, a powerful tool for advancing our understanding of chemical reactions and molecular interactions. This means we are a dry lab – running simulations on computers. No chemicals, no PPE, just models and algorithms. But why does computational chemistry exist in the first place, especially when chemistry is so rooted in physical matter? The answer is efficiency. Modeling molecules on a computer saves us from ordering chemicals, waiting for deliveries (a delay in chemistry t...
Read more

Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Image
  Matthew P Kearney Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond      Vertical farming may seem like something out of a futuristic movie, but they are very real in today’s agricultural industry. Vertical farming may promote a stronger relationship between urbanization and sustainable crop production. Based on recent innovations across agriculture and technology, vertical farming has the potential to revolutionize our current farming system. Through the development of vertical farming-based production lines, cities and otherwise unfarmable areas can be provided with fresh, local, and pesticide-free produce. Vertical farming and other adaptations of agriculture are not new ideas, but instead a historic and human process.      These technologies are ready to meaningfully address global food security through the technological and computational advancements in agriculture. Vertical farming has a promising future, which becomes a case...
Read more

Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health?

Image
  Hadia Hussain      Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health? Sitting in the nursery of the dental office where I worked, I reviewed Baby V’s medical history and reports from the Emergency Department at Jersey City Medical Center. I found it odd that, despite multiple visits and clear signs of malnutrition, no physician had been able to diagnose the cause. Baby V, at a low weight of 12 pounds was struggling with difficulty nursing and bottle feeding, excessive gassiness, colic, clicking sounds when feeding, milk dribbling out of the mouth, and mouth breathing—but doctors had dismissed these signs, labeling him as "healthy."  It didn’t make sense as his low weight raised serious concerns.  According to Pediatric specialists Jenny Olson, DNP, and Sarha DeVrieze, ARNP, at the UnityPoint Clinic, a 9-month-old baby boy should weigh anywhere in between the range of 17 to 25 pounds. Baby V's situation was clearly a ...
Read more