Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:13 am**

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why

Basically, the 1950s was peak science. So what changed? Do we really need another Cold War to spur human ingenuity? Would bringing back the WASP-patriarchy save humanity?

I would argue that if Scientists spent Sunday at church listening to a different viewpoint, rather than in their NPR echo chambers, breakthroughs would be possible.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:21 am**

Dead ball paper era?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:08 am**

Science = no profit.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:29 pm**

I don’t think science is advancing more slowly.

I think that there’s just a glut of boring and useless and “non-disruptive” papers being written.
There’s “pressure to publish” in academia… and so you wind up getting a lot of papers that just don’t add new value.

The ‘denominator’ is just too big.

This is only a problem because it potentially takes eyeballs and interest off the truly interesting papers that push boundaries.

Note it’s “Average CD” on the vertical axis.
I think if the measurement on that axis was total number of “disruptive papers” with a “CD” over some set number… you might have a different curve.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:50 pm**

jimboston wrote:I don’t think science is advancing more slowly.

I think that there’s just a glut of boring and useless and “non-disruptive” papers being written.
There’s “pressure to publish” in academia… and so you wind up getting a lot of papers that just don’t add new value.

The ‘denominator’ is just too big.

This is only a problem because it potentially takes eyeballs and interest off the truly interesting papers that push boundaries.

Note it’s “Average CD” on the vertical axis.
I think if the measurement on that axis was total number of “disruptive papers” with a “CD” over some set number… you might have a different curve.

The curve is different!
Here it is from the paper (not the article):

So in some areas of Computer patents and technological papers, there is still quite a bit of disruption. But, like jimb deduced, there has been a glut of garbage papers.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:59 pm**

I would argue that if Scientists spent Sunday at church listening to a different viewpoint, rather than in their NPR echo chambers, breakthroughs would be possible.

LOL!

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:05 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:
‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why

Maybe it's because scientific study is increasingly funded by corporations vs Gov't/Non-profits(who aren't backed by large corporations who pull their strings), and those corps have a 'here is the result we want, how can we produce a study that achieves it' mentality?

Similarly when the more disruptive papers are published, the corp backed researchers are much less likely to site things that dispute the desired results of the corps.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:21 pm**

And what are "the desired results of the corps"? I'll tell you - bottom line. Businesses want to maximize profit, universally. Don't go down the corporation conspiracy hole. Humans make and run corporate entities for the sole purpose of legal protection.

Like guns, corporations are NOT evil. Zeke. You're drinking too much cheap vino. And it's "cite" for f*ck sakes, you peasant!

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:24 pm**

mookiemcgee wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why

Maybe it's because scientific study is increasingly funded by corporations vs Gov't/Non-profits(who aren't backed by large corporations who pull their strings), and those corps have a 'here is the result we want, how can we produce a study that achieves it' mentality?

Similarly when the more disruptive papers are published, the corp backed researchers are much less likely to site things that dispute the desired results of the corps.

but it hasn’t declined…so why invent a theory to explain some that hasn’t happened.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:38 pm**

KoolBak wrote:And what are "the desired results of the corps"? I'll tell you - bottom line. Businesses want to maximize profit, universally. Don't go down the corporation conspiracy hole. Humans make and run corporate entities for the sole purpose of legal protection.

Like guns, corporations are NOT evil. Zeke. You're drinking too much cheap vino. And it's "cite" for f*ck sakes, you peasant!

I think you misunderstand my perspective because my whole thesis is baked into your first couple sentences. I'm not making some kind of moral judgement here where corps = bad and non-profits = good. I'm just stating the cause and effect. The cause is 'who is funding science now, and who is running the studies vs the 1950s ', the effect is 'Disruptive science has declined'. Anything further that you are reading into what i wrote is a reflection of your own pre-conceptions, or underestimations of my ability to have thoughts more complex than a fourth grader.

I'm not assigning blame to corps or gov'ts or universities. I'm just stating that corps have by design a 'need' to profit from research, and that is a direct conflict of interest with the need for objectivity in scientific research if you hope to find things out that you didn't already know (aka disruptive science). Large non-profit donors sometimes have these same conflicts due to political affiliations or causes they push. Universities (when the research is funded internally or funding doesn't come with strings attached) are for the most part free from these conflicts, sadly we've seen the pendulum swing mostly just one direction over the last 70 years... Away from this model.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:51 pm**

Well, good!

Now, as to the cheap vino.....

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:01 pm**

------------I am shocked HitRed...you swung and missed....I am on deck don't worry... O:)

----------------GOD is WINNING =D>

....HE is beating back the Devil and his science goons...

...

ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... O:)

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:08 pm**

KoolBak wrote:Well, good!

Now, as to the cheap vino.....

It's NOT cheap

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:44 pm**

the left

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:12 pm**

ConfederateSS wrote:------------I am shocked HitRed...you swung and missed....I am on deck don't worry...

----------------GOD is WINNING ....HE is beating back the Devil and his science goons... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

get the f*ck off the internet, then.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:26 am**

Several thoughts:

1) I do not know why 1950 was chosen to start the graph. I think of the 1950s was a time of conformity, so, of course, anything disruptive would have a big impact in that time period, in Science, Politics, and Culture, especially.

2) Scientific ideas that are disruptive generally tend to be ignored and/or shun. Democritus, Dalton, Avogadro, and Arrhenius come to mind in Chemistry.

In Physics, Einstein's ideas in 1905 were on the fringe and his General Relativity from 1915 was surely fringe and not well understood. That Notion was validated by Eddington's expedition in 1919 and that got General Relativity on the Front page of Newspapers. Copernicus did not publish his ideas on the Heliocentric universe until he was on his deathbed, knowing the disruption and upheaval that would cause.

3) There are valid points already made on funding of research. Most significant scientific ideas TODAY require BIG Money, so funding is a key factor.

4) With so many getting advanced degrees, of course most will be ultimately "fluff" and not disruptive. One has to be very convinced to offer "disruptive" ideas to get passed the "board" to get one's Ph. D. and to get approval of a Master's Degree proposal.

5) I see a trend that we, most of us, go along with the overall approach (and thus be non-disruptive) until a real revolutionary and significant figure offers a new approach. Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and Freud come to mind here. I am not sure of anyone recently that comes close. Stephen Hawking, as brilliant as he was, nor Murry Gell-Mann, nor Neil deGrasse Tyson approach that status as offering truly disruptive ideas.

6) I see the idea of Global Warming/Climate Change as a disruptive idea. Look at the opposition there.

7) BTW: Opposition there is from a political, not scientific, perspective. You have those in Politics, with little real knowledge of Science, trying to argue Science and do so badly. Those opposed to such notions convince many of a certain political mindset of the false idea that Global Warming is incorrect.

That mindset of an attack on Science has now spread also to Medicine and offer false narratives on the COVID Vaccines.

9) The attack on Medicine also includes attack on other vaccines (think Jenny McCarthy) and on the growth of alternatives to medicine and the growth of Supplements.

10) Medicine is still an ART and not entirely a Science. Many forget that. We do not have ALL the answers to one's health and the mindset of the patient is an important factor here, and that cannot always be correctly ascertained.

11) Many who argue against the Science are really not very knowledgeable of Science.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:25 am**

Graph started in the 40s

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:23 am**

riskllama wrote:
ConfederateSS wrote:------------I am shocked HitRed...you swung and missed....I am on deck don't worry...

----------------GOD is WINNING ....HE is beating back the Devil and his science goons... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

get the f*ck off the internet, then.

----------------Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer...Keep taps on the Devil...All his tricks...

...

ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... O:)

----------- Man couldn't even get balloons to fly , remember when , you become a billionaire, the thing was to hop in a balloon and try and fly around the world...They were having problems....The USA and Soviet/Russian space programs have sucked since the 1980's A.D...Greedy Medical Companies are shoving pills up your butt, down your throat... Making you weaker, so you come back time and time again,for more pill, more money for them...Yay science :roll:

....It is the same as the gas station man in the old days, would check your oil, have a ring with a razor on it...While he checks you oil,he cuts your fan belt, just enough, so so take off, break down a few miles up the road....Have to come back and have him fix your car.. Messing with Mother Nature...The know it alls , playing with monkeys and bats...Have giving the world...AIDS/COVID....Leave shit alone...Mankind will do just fine... Making way to HIS Kingdom...Lama......

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:51 pm**

HitRed wrote:Graph started in the 40s

No real significance; much of the world was:

1) conformist then;

2) at war; and

3) much of Science was dedicated to improve weapons and counter measures (e.g., Radar)

And I assume you have nothing else to add?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:04 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why

Basically, the 1950s was peak science. So what changed? Do we really need another Cold War to spur human ingenuity?

As the sum of our knowledge grows, the unknown shrinks. There is less and less to find out.

Let K represent all Knowledge possible.
Let k represent the knowledge currently possessed.
The unknown, therefore, is (K-k).
Assuming K is a constant, as k grows, (K-k) shrinks.
It's a mathematical inevitability that the more we know, the less we have available to research, and so the less likely it is that we will find out anything earth-shaking. The sum of the discoveries made in the past constantly shrinks the window of opportunity for discoveries made in the future.

I think I posted here about this effect in Chemistry. For last 20 years or so, Nobel prizes in Chemistry have been given out for more and more obscure bits of trivia, more chemical engineering than pure science, plus a few bits of biochem snuck into Chemistry when they really should have been Medicine. Chemistry is an example of a mature science where we already know almost everything and the things left to learn are incredibly trivial.

Biology still has some discoveries, but it's very unlikely they will change the world. There are still some bits of onion to peel back in paleontology, but in terms of life as it is now we pretty much know everything.

Astrophysics still has some pretty big unknowns, but if you take physics as a whole -- including things like ballistics and thermodynamics -- physics is a pretty mature science already.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:29 pm**

Dukasaur wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why

Basically, the 1950s was peak science. So what changed? Do we really need another Cold War to spur human ingenuity?

As the sum of our knowledge grows, the unknown shrinks. There is less and less to find out.

Let K represent all Knowledge possible.
Let k represent the knowledge currently possessed.
The unknown, therefore, is (K-k).
Assuming K is a constant, as k grows, (K-k) shrinks.
It's a mathematical inevitability that the more we know, the less we have available to research, and so the less likely it is that we will find out anything earth-shaking. The sum of the discoveries made in the past constantly shrinks the window of opportunity for discoveries made in the future.

I think I posted here about this effect in Chemistry. For last 20 years or so, Nobel prizes in Chemistry have been given out for more and more obscure bits of trivia, more chemical engineering than pure science, plus a few bits of biochem snuck into Chemistry when they really should have been Medicine. Chemistry is an example of a mature science where we already know almost everything and the things left to learn are incredibly trivial.

Biology still has some discoveries, but it's very unlikely they will change the world. There are still some bits of onion to peel back in paleontology, but in terms of life as it is now we pretty much know everything.

Astrophysics still has some pretty big unknowns, but if you take physics as a whole -- including things like ballistics and thermodynamics -- physics is a pretty mature science already.

I was thinking the same, BUT.....

There is the story of the "ultraviolet catastrophe." The guy who solved the problem was Max Planck. The guy who took all the pieces and made a NEW Paradigm, the "New" (Modern) Physics, as it were, is....

Einstein.

So that kind of Revolutionary turn of Science may still happen. Overall though, I tend to think Duk is essentially correct on much of Science. The same can be said for other fields of endeavor, such as Philosophy, Economics, and even Music and even Comedy (yes, non Science) and other Arts.

The solving of the Fusion issue (in another thread), linking Relativity to Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Computing, and more that escape at this time, are a few of the issues that need to be solved that MAY have REVOLUTIONARY impact.

Most of what we have learned (Scientific Discoveries) in recent years is confirmation of what we think we know. Think Higgs Boson here; that confirmed the Standard Model.

And Duk is essentially correct: most of Chemistry is to me really Biochemistry and Medicine, not "pure Chemistry" as I know it. I am not aware of Big Questions in Geology. Biology is still looking at DNA and its application. Evolution and Origin of Life are still Big Questions, imo, as well in Biology.

Global Warming (and Climate Change) is a scientific idea that Politics has crept into that turns it into a controversy that is really NOT a Scientific Controversy, despite what certain Political persons say. (Again, we discussed that at length that topic in another thread, or ten threads.)

Medicine is still got questions to answer, but keys to good health and long life are well known, but many do not want to follow those recommendations and ideas. And YES, Genetics does play a HUGE role in Health, NO Doubt. As I said earlier, it still an Art as some ideas do not work FOR ALL patients and for ALL of US. I was looking at an article TODAY from 2017 publication of the importance of vaccines, but many want to argue that (at least SOME) vaccines are RISKY when Science show that they are NOT for most people. Here the Risks are outweighed by the Benefits.

The mRNA Technology is rather new, but it has been around for at least 10 years and that has paid dividends.

ONE LAST Key point: As we learn more, we get closer to the TRUTH, in all fields. That amount of unknown shrinks, making new discoveries, disruptive ones, too, more difficult to decipher.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:34 pm**

One more point:

Dukasaur wrote:

As the sum of our knowledge grows, the unknown shrinks. There is less and less to find out.

Let K represent all Knowledge possible.
Let k represent the knowledge currently possessed.
The unknown, therefore, is (K-k).
Assuming K is a constant, as k grows, (K-k) shrinks

The total knowledge is NOT constant, the more we learn, the more we know what we DO NOT know. The value of

K, all Knowledge possible

tends to grow.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:56 pm**

jusplay4fun wrote:One more point:

Dukasaur wrote:

As the sum of our knowledge grows, the unknown shrinks. There is less and less to find out.

Let K represent all Knowledge possible.
Let k represent the knowledge currently possessed.
The unknown, therefore, is (K-k).
Assuming K is a constant, as k grows, (K-k) shrinks

The total knowledge is NOT constant, the more we learn, the more we know what we DO NOT know. The value of
K, all Knowledge possible
tends to grow.

No. K includes all which is known and all which is not known. It cannot increase. All that can change is the ratio of one to the other.

In other words, things are either known or not known. Everything in the universe falls into one category or the other. There isn't a third envelope that is neither known nor unknown, unless you want to use that for purely imaginary thought experiments like Schroedinger's cat.

jusplay4fun wrote:So that kind of Revolutionary turn of Science may still happen.

Of course there will still be spectacular discoveries. All I'm saying is that over time it is inevitable that there will always be fewer. But the frequency won't reach zero until an infinity of time has passed.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:13 pm**

Dukasaur wrote:
jusplay4fun wrote:One more point:

Dukasaur wrote:

As the sum of our knowledge grows, the unknown shrinks. There is less and less to find out.

Let K represent all Knowledge possible.
Let k represent the knowledge currently possessed.
The unknown, therefore, is (K-k).
Assuming K is a constant, as k grows, (K-k) shrinks

The total knowledge is NOT constant, the more we learn, the more we know what we DO NOT know. The value of
K, all Knowledge possible
tends to grow.

No. K includes all which is known and all which is not known. It cannot increase. All that can change is the ratio of one to the other.

In other words, things are either known or not known. Everything in the universe falls into one category or the other. There isn't a third envelope that is neither known nor unknown, unless you want to use that for purely imaginary thought experiments like Schroedinger's cat.

jusplay4fun wrote:So that kind of Revolutionary turn of Science may still happen.

Of course there will still be spectacular discoveries. All I'm saying is that over time it is inevitable that there will always be fewer. But the frequency won't reach zero until an infinity of time has passed.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:24 pm**

I think I posted here about this effect in Chemistry. For last 20 years or so, Nobel prizes in Chemistry have been given out for more and more obscure bits of trivia, more chemical engineering than pure science, plus a few bits of biochem snuck into Chemistry when they really should have been Medicine. Chemistry is an example of a mature science where we already know almost everything and the things left to learn are incredibly

Next time I use a Lithium-Ion battery, or GFP, or cell membrane channels, or a molecular machine, I'll remember that it is either incredibly trivial or not real Chemistry.

Certainly the AI that can correctly predict protein shape was a major breakthrough this year. It was a breakthrough, but not really disruptive. Unless it was disruptive in the sense that crystallography which could take years is now almost an irrelevant practice for protein. That's neither trivial nor medicine and will get a Nobel prize one day.

If we know so much about chemistry, how come every textbook on Chemistry still includes Bohr diagrams?

Conquer Club

What Happened to Science?

What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?

Re: What Happened to Science?