3 ms·

"Our doctors have made such astonishing advances over the last 7 years, our medical knowledge doubling in that time, that I think if I'd only been born another

"Our doctors have made such astonishing advances over the last 7 years, our medical knowledge doubling in that time, that I think if I'd only been born another 25 years later, then I am sure they would easily relieve me of my asthma." --- Laurence Stern, writing in Tristam Shandy, in 1759. He used the word "asthma" to refer to the tuberculosis that eventually killed him. As for a cure for tuberculosis, he was wrong by 200 years. As far as I know, this was the first prediction of steady advances in medicine, as well as the first use of the trope "If I'd only been born 25 years later, doctors could cure me."

staticassertion 4y ago
I wonder if anyone has tried to map scientific progress in some quantifiable way, and if so, whether or not it matches punctuated equilibrium. It does seem as if there are periods of time in which we make steady progress, and once in a while leaps and bounds improvements are made all at once. It also reminds me of how genetic algorithms that I've written tend to work - lots of "no improvement, cull, no improvement, cull" followed by "huge improvement". It would give the impression, during those bursts, that you're just around the corner from a wildly different world.
- sulam 4y ago
  There have been a couple efforts I know of to “quantify” science progress in general. In one study[0], physicists, chemists and medical researchers were asked to rate the important of different Nobel-prize-winning discoveries in their field since the prize was established. The results generally showed that discoveries are getting harder to make, where “harder” is indicated by the age of the discoverer and the number of participants in the process. One important factor that I feel like is overlooked here is that some discoveries are less likely to be appreciated immediately, largely because their impact is not yet fully felt. Also some form of anti-recency bias may be at play here, in that new results that are still somewhat under debate are less likely to be deemed “important” than older, established discoveries. 0: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminish...
- tetris11 4y ago
  This is the best reference timeline I've found, which separates human progress into distinct epochs. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~cpd/history.html https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~cpd/history.html
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "It does seem as if there are periods of time in which we make steady progress, and once in a while leaps and bounds improvements are made all at once." You might be interested in Thomas Khun's[1] famous work: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".[2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    Thanks, it looks like it.

staticassertion 4y ago

I wonder if anyone has tried to map scientific progress in some quantifiable way, and if so, whether or not it matches punctuated equilibrium. It does seem as if there are periods of time in which we make steady progress, and once in a while leaps and bounds improvements are made all at once. It also reminds me of how genetic algorithms that I've written tend to work - lots of "no improvement, cull, no improvement, cull" followed by "huge improvement". It would give the impression, during those bursts, that you're just around the corner from a wildly different world.

sulam 4y ago
There have been a couple efforts I know of to “quantify” science progress in general. In one study[0], physicists, chemists and medical researchers were asked to rate the important of different Nobel-prize-winning discoveries in their field since the prize was established. The results generally showed that discoveries are getting harder to make, where “harder” is indicated by the age of the discoverer and the number of participants in the process. One important factor that I feel like is overlooked here is that some discoveries are less likely to be appreciated immediately, largely because their impact is not yet fully felt. Also some form of anti-recency bias may be at play here, in that new results that are still somewhat under debate are less likely to be deemed “important” than older, established discoveries. 0: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminish...
tetris11 4y ago
This is the best reference timeline I've found, which separates human progress into distinct epochs. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~cpd/history.html https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~cpd/history.html
pmoriarty 4y ago
"It does seem as if there are periods of time in which we make steady progress, and once in a while leaps and bounds improvements are made all at once." You might be interested in Thomas Khun's[1] famous work: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".[2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
- staticassertion 4y ago
  Thanks, it looks like it.