I assume we have a whole lot more scientists than we have back then, both in total and per capita. Still, if scientific progress is in any way real and not cyc

I assume we have a whole lot more scientists than we have back then, both in total and per capita. Still, if scientific progress is in any way real and not cyclical (as in Kuhn), then science should be getting harder. It stands to reason that if there are fewer and fewer secrets to find, finding them (or randomly stumbling upon them) will be a lot rarer. We tend to assume that there is an infinite amount of knowledge to be gained of the natural world, but it's not necessarily so. It's especially not evident that our tools are evolving as fast as they need to, or even that they can evolve much further. I'm not saying "everything has been found", more like "all progress makes further progress require more effort, by definition".