The Post-Science Era

[RArvay]

It is time to begin thinking the unthinkable: science is reaching the limits of its ability to explain nature. While the idea seems preposterous at first, science writers are already beginning to discuss the onset of a post-science era (see links at the end of this commentary).

Of course this does not mean that science will no longer be taught. Nature will continue to be studied. Nor, on the other hand, does it mean that scientists will finally have reached a completed theory of everything (or even most things).

What will happen, indeed what is happening, is that disagreements among scientists will become so numerous and so profound that no one will be able to empirically decide who is right and who is wrong. More importantly, there will be no agreement on how to continue.

One of the limiting factors of science is, of course, the human brain. Until recently, it was assumed (or at least implied) that there will always be a certain number of phenomenal geniuses who can formulate all the principles of nature, understand those formulas, and more importantly, explain them to the rest of us, at least to a level that the average engineer can use to produce the next wave of technology.

Perhaps it should be obvious to us by now that the human brain has finite capacities of understanding. As JBS Haldane famously said, the universe might be stranger than we can possibly imagine. In his book, A Brief History of Everything, philosopher Ken Wilber proposes the interesting idea that physical reality may be composed of an infinite hierarchy, from the infinitely small, to the infinitely large. If something like this is true, there is no hope that scientists can ever discover the overarching principle of reality. Wilber’s idea is suggested in the Multi-Universe proposal, an idea which is accepted as “gospel” by some physicists, but is regarded as contemptible heresy by others.

In the post-science era, scientists will continue to propose new theories, but those proposals will largely go untested by experiment. When experiments are conducted, the results may not fit any present theoretical framework, but discarding those frameworks without installing an adequate replacement will only further increase the confusions and controversies. Dark matter and dark energy may soon be accompanied by even stranger suggestions of dark time and dark space, which some wit might term the onset of a “dark” age of science.

Whenever any institution collapses, the rubble is quickly exploited. The fall of the Roman Empire launched the age of barbarian conquests in Europe, a tangle of wars which lasted centuries, culminating in the ultra-barbarism of the 1940s. (I apologize to barbarians for the comparison.)

The collapse of science will be exploited by frauds and charlatans, sorcerors and alchemysts, wizards and (unfortunately) warriors. If you think the challenges to relativity and quantum mechanics are ferocious today, they will tomorrow break open the gates of the city, that great city, Babylon (science).

When man’s crowning achievement, reason, has proved inadequate to further basic human knowledge, then reason itself will be seen no longer as a strength to be nurtured, but a weakness to be eradicated.

Listen. Is that the sound of horses?

The following links were found at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... ZY2H21px0g

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-m ... cs-1.16535
"This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
"I don't think though that this will have any effect on multiverse mania and its use as an excuse for the failure of string theory unification. It seems to me that we're now ten years down the road from the point when discussion revolved around actual models and people thought maybe they could calculate something. As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
"This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
"What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/peri ... n-physics/
"It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
.

[Brad Johnson]

You begin with your own conclusion and then build a straw house out of it. And science writers are not scientists. Are you on the cutting edge of present theoretical work? No theoretician will stand on a mountaintop and shout " I know it all now !" Thousands of people are engaged in hundreds of ideas. When they're ready we will hear. Your ways lead down a path of magic and superstition not science and not religion. You consistently "paint yourself into a corner" by a lack of intellectual growth and adherence to a doctrine that you are the only one who "who sees the truth". The majority of us you don't hear from are annoyed that you cannot formulate an intellectual argument to support whatever you think we need to know. Forgive my bluntness, but, 50 yrs ago your type was content to live and let live and I enjoyed their company. Since the 80's proselitization has become the norm, and when mixed with conservative politics society finds itself "pussyfooting" around; afraid to think as God intended. We've become a society that uses its cleverness to dissemble rather than build. This has extended all the way to the top of academia as those fight to keep the "ground" they occupy.
Brad Johnson ( no, not that one!)

[RArvay]

Oh my, I had no idea I had said all that, nor that my comments would provoke such outrage.
Indeed, they are not really my comments per se, but a digest of the contents of the links which I posted.
It might help if you would specify particular statements I made which you find objectionable.
Was it, "Perhaps it should be obvious to us by now that the human brain has finite capacities of understanding."?
Or, was it, "The collapse of science will be exploited by frauds and charlatans. . ."?
Perhaps you disagree with specific statements in the links I posted, statements for which I can claim
neither credit nor responsibility.
According to you,"50 yrs ago [my] type was content to live and let live."
If your impression of me is that I eschew either of these noble goals, please enlighten me as to
what I said to give that impression.
My honest impression of your comments, please allow me to be blunt,
is that they were reflexive and ad hominem.
I hope those impressions are mistaken.
Happy new year!

[Q-reeus]

Mark Twain aka Samuel Clemens famously quipped: "News of my death is somewhat premature". The same sentiment can be well echoed in respect of say John Horgan's "The End of Science", which dramatic title certainly had the intended effect of selling that book: http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Science-K ... 0553061747.
Similarly for the equally absurd claim of "The End of Politics": http://www.cps.org.uk/events/q/date/201 ... e-birth-o/
Tragically, the converse is happening there as Orwellian Total Surveillance becomes ever more solidified.

There is this selective phenomenon where sensationalist claims garner initial favorable press then propelling a new book into best-seller status. That it is subsequently torn to shreds by sober specialists draws far less press and unfortunately little dents sales. Example par excellence: The Bible Code - all trash versions. Notwithstanding the 'impeccable credentials' of it's proponents who it turned out had a tribal religious/ideological axe to grind.
At any rate the current rut in fundamental physics cannot be just extrapolated with anything like real confidence. There may be valuable insights within stuff from the likes of Horgan, but not advisable to swallow it whole.

[RArvay]

I agree that "The End of Science" is a bit too dramatic a title.
However, the success of science depends on a lot of infrastructure, including
the university, national governments, and popular support from the people who
go to their jobs every day and pay the bills.

So long as there is one scientist somewhere who follows where the evidence leads, science
as an endeavor will survive.

The post-science era, if it comes about, will not be a failure of science, but of society,
of professors more concerned about tenure and prestige (and book sales),
of government--- funding those programs which translate into votes (or power),
and a failure of the general public which, if mis-educated, demands the perpetual motion machine.

These are not imaginary dangers, and we (to use a cliché) ignore them at our peril.

There is also a more esoteric danger, and that comes from within the institutions of science itself.
We see that perhaps most clearly in the ongoing debate about the multiple universes proposal.
Advocates/opponents are on both sides, and they certainly are not without credentials and reputation.

The opponents decry taking seriously a proposal which they claim is unscientific.
The proponents dismiss the lack of direct physical observation by relying on mathematical and theoretical arguments,
precisely the kinds of argument that generates the ire of naturalist purists (of which I am not one).

This may at the moment be dismissed as a tempest in a teapot sort of triviality,
a controversy confined to journals and academic debates.

However, once it gets beyond that, and into policy decisions among administrators and
governments, not to mention public demands for more useful practical applications (as opposed to pure theory),
then the institutions of science may well be hijacked by people motivated not by evidence, but by personal gain.

That is a prospect which should be seriously discussed now, not when it has become too late to find remedies.
.

[Yablon]

Science is nowhere near an end right now. It is stuck in a ditch for sure, and entrenched interests and the politicization and monetization of research are not helping, but it is nowhere close to being at an end. In the late 19th century there were proclamations that science had found out everything. That was about as prescient as the great Benjamin Franklin saying that while electricity was an interesting plaything, he could envision no practical use for it! Really!!!

To the extent that some may think science is at an end because quantum theory has established in-principle limits upon our ability to explain things without resort extra-scientific information, that is an unfortunate waving of a white surrender flag where none is warranted. The forward progress of science advances the boundary between illumination and ignorance, and those who value light over darkness should never take "no, nothing more to be found here" as an answer.

Jay