3 ms·

"This is not to deny that our time traveler would find the Internet, new medical imaging devices, advances in molecular biology and gene editing, the verificati

by user402 10y ago

"This is not to deny that our time traveler would find the Internet, new medical imaging devices, advances in molecular biology and gene editing, the verification of gravity waves, and other inventions and discoveries remarkable, nor to deny that these developments often required leaps of imagination, deep mathematical analyses, and hard-earned technical know-how. Nevertheless..." You have to be enormously jaded to list off a bunch of huge advances and then basically say...meh. How doesn't this line invalidate everything that follows it?

gumby 10y ago
I disagree with the author but this position is consistent with his thesis: that basic science hasn't advanced as dramatically in the past half century as it did in the preceding half century, even if its exploitation has. The reason I disagree with the author is that there's an ebb and flow, and the advances of the period 1915-1965 built on a lot of other interesting work done before 1915 (the period from Maxwell to the end of WWI were amazing too; Einstein's three astonishing papers dated from 1905 and of course themselves built upon prior work). I think we're just in a tough period where we've reached the limits of our current tools (both theoretical/mathematical and experimental) -- essentially the rowboats of physics and biology are wallowing while people understand the implications and try to catch up.
- user402 10y ago
  Re: "basic science", what about "advances in molecular biology and gene editing"? I don't know exactly what the authors have in mind, but CRISPR-Cas, recombinant DNA, RNA interference, identity of the hox genes, DNA sequencing...all of these were huge advances in basic science in the last 50 years (some of them are also now being used practically). I guess it's tough to really put myself in the shoes of someone living 75 years ago, but from where I'm sitting (I'm a biologist) the basic science is moving so unbelievably fast it's exhilarating.

by user402 10y ago

gumby 10y ago

I disagree with the author but this position is consistent with his thesis: that basic science hasn't advanced as dramatically in the past half century as it did in the preceding half century, even if its exploitation has. The reason I disagree with the author is that there's an ebb and flow, and the advances of the period 1915-1965 built on a lot of other interesting work done before 1915 (the period from Maxwell to the end of WWI were amazing too; Einstein's three astonishing papers dated from 1905 and of course themselves built upon prior work). I think we're just in a tough period where we've reached the limits of our current tools (both theoretical/mathematical and experimental) -- essentially the rowboats of physics and biology are wallowing while people understand the implications and try to catch up.

user402 10y ago
Re: "basic science", what about "advances in molecular biology and gene editing"? I don't know exactly what the authors have in mind, but CRISPR-Cas, recombinant DNA, RNA interference, identity of the hox genes, DNA sequencing...all of these were huge advances in basic science in the last 50 years (some of them are also now being used practically). I guess it's tough to really put myself in the shoes of someone living 75 years ago, but from where I'm sitting (I'm a biologist) the basic science is moving so unbelievably fast it's exhilarating.