The last paradigm-breaking discovery in physics was the cosmic microwave background in 1965. (You might count high-temperature superconductors in 1986.) The last paradigm-breaking discovery in biology was the genetic code in 1957.
Why? My answer is that science has become a career instead of a passion. Science has followed a business model. The way to succeed in business is to minimize mistakes. The way to succeed in science is to maximize successes, which often involves a lot of mistakes.
When people bemoan the lack of advancement during the last 50 years, they should also consider that the space of possible discoveries may well be finite. Did the Age of Exploration end hundreds of years ago because explorers were no longer made of the right stuff?
Thank you! I agree that MOND should be considered, but it is already being taken seriously, in a way that I think Arp is not. -- witness the article you quote.
In addition to the statistical evidence cited by Eugyppius, I would add evidence that there is a fundamental role for mind at the root of physics. http://tinyurl.com/Cardena2018
Thank you for mentioning Arp and psychological physics. I will read up.
As to Eugyppius, I often find myself disagreeing. It's unfortunate that his article about scientific innovation is paywalled. Even though the PNAS paper finds interesting citation trends, using those trends to draw conclusions about the lack of paradigm shifts is quite a leap. The authors assume, without justification, that "more novel frontiers" always exist.
It used to be possible to point a radio dish at the sky and discover CMB radiation. That possibility being checked off must count for something.
Your concerns are important to the future of science (and Science too). An editor would have to be a stodgy ass to not find the openness inherent in your thought process intriguing. I sure do!
Thank you for writing this Josh. I personally enjoy considering opinions contrary to mine. I wish the established and entrenched institutions would as well.
Great ! What leaders of absolutely unintelligible progress amongst nerds. Of course, while all this is going on the population, world wide, is being subjected to a deadly campaign of fear and Science has nothing to say about or to address this issue?
That is like a 8th grade crossing guard not doing anything about the 4th grade bullies attacking the kindergartners, but by golly, he sure gets the kids across the street!
"Science" is the Mad Magazine of the intellectual Elite.
Really enjoyed this post! I’ve a curious mind as well and have explored interesting ideas in the electric universe ( no black holes),theories of coronary artery disease (not involving lipids), mathematical improbabilities of Darwinian evolution. They should all be discussed. We assume to much theory to be true.
Thanks for fighting the good fight Josh. I especially appreciated your reference to cold fusion. Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT, who used to teach a yearly seminar during winter break on the subject, had a chart that he would show (I don't have a link at present) that summarized across all known Pd-based experiments, success of achieving excess energy vs. degree of Deuterium loading in the Pd... and it was quite persuasive in showing that the more loading toward the theoretical max. the better the output. LENR is a very fitting example of the suppression of scientific progress and inquiry by status quo gatekeepers.
The last paradigm-breaking discovery in physics was the cosmic microwave background in 1965. (You might count high-temperature superconductors in 1986.) The last paradigm-breaking discovery in biology was the genetic code in 1957.
The first half the 20th century was the most fertile time in the history of science. The last 50 years have been barren. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/science/science-breakthroughs-disruption.html
Why? My answer is that science has become a career instead of a passion. Science has followed a business model. The way to succeed in business is to minimize mistakes. The way to succeed in science is to maximize successes, which often involves a lot of mistakes.
Maybe LIGO didn't break paradigms, but the discovery of gravitational waves was still exciting. Machine Learning, while not old-school science, is making breakthroughs. MOND belongs on the list of suppressed theories. https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-explore-alternatives-to-the-standard-model-of-cosmology
When people bemoan the lack of advancement during the last 50 years, they should also consider that the space of possible discoveries may well be finite. Did the Age of Exploration end hundreds of years ago because explorers were no longer made of the right stuff?
Thank you! I agree that MOND should be considered, but it is already being taken seriously, in a way that I think Arp is not. -- witness the article you quote.
Eugyppius last week countered the argument that the reason we don't have a lot of new breakthroughs is that "the space of possible discoveries is finite". https://www.eugyppius.com/p/what-is-wrong-with-the-science. He calls it the "harvested fruit hypothesis". A PNAS article last summer laid the groundwork. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
In addition to the statistical evidence cited by Eugyppius, I would add evidence that there is a fundamental role for mind at the root of physics. http://tinyurl.com/Cardena2018
Thank you for mentioning Arp and psychological physics. I will read up.
As to Eugyppius, I often find myself disagreeing. It's unfortunate that his article about scientific innovation is paywalled. Even though the PNAS paper finds interesting citation trends, using those trends to draw conclusions about the lack of paradigm shifts is quite a leap. The authors assume, without justification, that "more novel frontiers" always exist.
It used to be possible to point a radio dish at the sky and discover CMB radiation. That possibility being checked off must count for something.
Thank you for your tireless advocacy for curiosity and open debate Josh. 🙏🙏🙏
Your concerns are important to the future of science (and Science too). An editor would have to be a stodgy ass to not find the openness inherent in your thought process intriguing. I sure do!
Thank you for writing this Josh. I personally enjoy considering opinions contrary to mine. I wish the established and entrenched institutions would as well.
Bravo!
The nice response, hoping you won’t go there.
And you did.
Courageous Truth will destroy the Deadly, quite literally, narrative of the CIA/ Medical Complex
Great ! What leaders of absolutely unintelligible progress amongst nerds. Of course, while all this is going on the population, world wide, is being subjected to a deadly campaign of fear and Science has nothing to say about or to address this issue?
That is like a 8th grade crossing guard not doing anything about the 4th grade bullies attacking the kindergartners, but by golly, he sure gets the kids across the street!
"Science" is the Mad Magazine of the intellectual Elite.
Really enjoyed this post! I’ve a curious mind as well and have explored interesting ideas in the electric universe ( no black holes),theories of coronary artery disease (not involving lipids), mathematical improbabilities of Darwinian evolution. They should all be discussed. We assume to much theory to be true.
Thanks for fighting the good fight Josh. I especially appreciated your reference to cold fusion. Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT, who used to teach a yearly seminar during winter break on the subject, had a chart that he would show (I don't have a link at present) that summarized across all known Pd-based experiments, success of achieving excess energy vs. degree of Deuterium loading in the Pd... and it was quite persuasive in showing that the more loading toward the theoretical max. the better the output. LENR is a very fitting example of the suppression of scientific progress and inquiry by status quo gatekeepers.