4 ms·
> "Physics and science in general looks stagnant (...) because it is actually stagnant. Mate, what are you on about? We manipulate life almost at will, we have
by kmonad 10y ago
> "Physics and science in general looks stagnant (...) because it is actually stagnant.
Mate, what are you on about? We manipulate life almost at will, we have proven theorems that were unsolved for centuries, etc. Your limited imagination and your apparent lacking ability to see things in perspective make no rule.
- marktangotango 10y ago> manipulate life ... at will Cure for cancer? Cure for any genetic disease? Antibiotic resistant bacteria?
- kmonad 10y agoDo you genuinely believe this is an insightful response? Without knowing your background, this makes it seem rather likely you are arguing from the 'larger population' point of view. Given the forum, let's assume you're a little more familiar with tech: Perfect encryption? NLP that understands meaning? Do you see now how it's a fallacy to take cutting edge scientific breakthroughs and demand instantaneous applications, and if these aren't met, discard the breakthroughs as having little meaning?
- dekhn 10y agoHis comment is spot on. We cannot manipulate life almost at will. We have some amazing tools, but the actual outcomes of manipulation are mostly just selecting for rare, random positive outcomes, than actual intent and engineering leading to rational results. (background: PhD in Biophysics, I've cloned genes and run huge simulations of protein folding, as well as worked in genomics and pharmaceutical chemistry).
- kmonad 10y agoI think you misunderstand, what you are saying is my point. I argue that science, unlike the parent comment's claim, has not stagnated but made amazing progress. Yet, that when seeking to identify scientific progress by looking at new applications one might not arrive at a valid conclusion.
- dekhn 10y agoOK. I would say "discovery is stochastic", such that we do make amazing progress in a theoretical sense, although that progress doesn't seem to lead to tangible improvements.
- kmonad 10y agoCertainly our understanding of the world is improved, no? When you mean 'tangible' in the sense of 'solving a real world problem', i.e. an immediate application, then I feel this is getting a little circular. I simply reject the claim that one of the parent comments were making whereby science in general is not progressing. (edit: question mark)
- le-mark 10y agoWhy do others misunderstand? Maybe you say one thing and mean something else? It is clear you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and this community is worse off for it.
- marktangotango 10y agoThe statement I quoted was pure bombast and hyperbole. I trivially disproved it by example. You are clearly ignorant about the challenges involved applying molecular biology to solve real problems ie the areas I cited to start. The onus is on you to educate yourself.
- kmonad 10y agoMay I just point out that 'science is stagnant' is not only hyperbole, but wrong, as disproved by my examples highlighting amazing achievements in biology and mathematics. Unless you would like to propse neither are amazing feats.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]