tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5633495.post116540660981387957..comments2023-07-02T15:55:30.759+01:00Comments on De-Scribed: Has science shot itself in the foot?Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5633495.post-1166271453320134002006-12-16T12:17:00.000+00:002006-12-16T12:17:00.000+00:00"Math is hard" -- BarbieHmmm.I think it's wrong to..."Math is hard" -- Barbie<BR/><BR/>Hmmm.<BR/><BR/>I think it's wrong to primarily blame science for the problems. Or rather, if science is at fault it's because it's too succesful. <BR/><BR/>Basically, in almost every area, science is too hard for most people to do something interesting. In the 18th century there was anough low hanging fruit that some enlightenment polymath who'd had a basic mathematical education and read a couple of books on natural philosophy could probably contribute to a chosen field, while having a life. And more, that chosen field could have a broad application.<BR/><BR/>In the 21st century, people need a high degree of mathematical ability, training and personal commitment to make even a small contribution of new knowledge, and it's likely to be in a very obscure area.<BR/><BR/>(Unlike football and singing, science is cumulative. Each generation gets to stand on the shoulders of giants, but first they have to climb up there.)<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I probably agree with you that we've expected to professionalize and institutionalize science and have more scientists on-tap to do these trivial pieces of work. <BR/><BR/>The independently wealthy 18th century amateur probably only did the really cool stuff, and no-one expected anyone to fill in the details. Now all aspiring scientists are expected to spend nearly a decade as a lowly paid post-doc, doing that.<BR/><BR/>But science is hardly alone in this. Everything got professionalized and institutionalized in the 20th Century. Even soft and caring vocations like social work, health care, charity etc. Are people turning away from them too?<BR/><BR/>Agree that pseudo-science and feel-good spirituality may have a stronger attraction for many people, but I'm not sure things are different now from the streets of Athens where the early philosophers took on the Sophists. The late 19th and early 20th centuries had fundamentalist christianity and popular fads of spiritualism and theosophy. That didn't seem to slow down scientific progress.<BR/><BR/>Personally I don't see we should try to dilute science with unscience just to make it popular. Let it go underground again. The hardcore fans will keep churning out the true knowledge. And we can let the developing world, with its more pro-science attitudes have the economic initiative for a while.Composinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.com