Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mulmen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mulmen

"Everything that can be invented has already been invented" - Charles H. Duell, 1899.

We don't know anywhere near "most" things. The supply of novel discovery is not the limitation.

View on HN

"Everything that can be invented has already been invented" - Charles H. Duell, 1899.

Please don't use that quote. It's apocryphal; he almost certainly never said that.

It's not about how close we are to "knowing most things," but about how accessible new learning is. In a game of musical chairs, all the easy chairs are taken.

How about this quote from Lord Kelvin:

> The beauty and clearness of the dynamical theory, which asserts heat and light to be modes of motion, is at present obscured by two clouds. I. The first came into existence with the undulatory theory of light, and was dealt with by Fresnel and Dr. Thomas Young; it involved the question, how could the earth move through an elastic solid, such as essentially is the luminiferous ether? II. The second is the Maxwell–Boltzmann doctrine regarding the partition of energy.[0]

As I understand it, the two clouds were dealt with via special relativity and quantum mechanics.

[0] https://books.google.com/books?id=YvoAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA363#v=on...

I think he used that quote with the year timestamp to show how silly that quote is.

Yes, and david927 is making the counterpoint that the quote is not silly now, nor was it silly then (because it was not made then).

Or to be exact, it's not that the quote isn't silly but that it's not a quote.

The average age of a Nobel laureate continues to climb at a steady rate. We are reaching asymptotic knowledge gains in all the major fields. This fact combined with the tenure track / novelty factor leads to what we see today.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation.

Our society has changed, dramatically, in the past 30 years. We've gone from a completely disconnected society with connections spanning arm's reach to a globally connected society with connections spanning just as far. Baby sitters have been replaced with digital tablets providing endless entertainment and ensuring no person, adult or child, ever need sit with their own recreation being solely within their mind. One needs only look at the slew of digital devices whipped out at any eatery, lest individuals be left to their own thoughts for an agonizing 10 minutes.

The internet and our technology has shattered nearly all educational barriers. Getting an MIT caliber education for free is now something any child in a developing country who has access to the internet can do, if so inclined. On the other hand they can find countless entertaining drama to read or participate in, find an endless supply of porn, engage in social media and other online sites that are specifically designed for addiction, or find an array of games and other forms of fast response stimuli all designed to make him or her feel good.

Einstein constantly related his tales of meandering strolls as he pondered his work. Another individual that has managed to achieve some great things in modern science is Stephen Hawking. He's mentioned spending decades thinking intently, even if not exclusively, on singular topics. And there is absolutely every reason to believe that is in no way bluster. Given his condition, his mind is his recreation.

Is the breaking down of information barriers in our society helping more than the massive commercialization and directed addiction towards all sorts of mediums and vices along with the rapid reward systems they offer, is hurting it? It's not just high level academia that's failing. Education systems to be deteriorating at all levels with US (which is the center of much of this change) scores in math and science rapidly falling behind much of the rest of the world. Healthfulness has fallen to dangerously low levels. And more. Regression is not impossible.

This explanation has no support in actual evidence whatsoever.

Finland has seen a clear decline in literacy after the emergence of smartphones in the last decade (every child past 7 has one).

Although, to be fair, the direct effect is explained by increased inequality:

http://www.eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/20/contri...

Yet, I know how digital shit affects me. I'm not talking about the devices themselves, I'm talking about being flung up by some stupid pointless shit in social media or by the colorfull game which totally hijacks the reward mechanisms in my brain.

I totally fail to see how the effects which promote shallow, fast reward seeking cognition are not not detrimental... yeah yeah, it sounds like greeks whining about reading spoiling the mind but the difference is that our media is engineered to distact and hijack the mind for no valuable outcome whatsoever.

Sure, there are lots of positive effects but that does not mean one should not discuss the negative ones as well.

And no evidence against it. I believe it was intended as a hypothesis.

While most of the comment is indeed a very detailed and interesting analysis, the last part is unfortunately looking like a "it was better before" nostalgia bias.

I'm currently writing my phd project (after having worked for 10 years in a company) and I'm absolutely stunned by the current easiness to access papers and informations compared to just 10 year ago when I left university.

I concure however that a new and real challenge is now to be able to filter the noise induced by this overwhelming volume of available information. But I don't think nostalgia is an useful tool to reach this goal.

PS: To illustrate https://xkcd.com/1601/

(And I believe there was another comic that it traced it back to Greek philosophers that rejected writing. Thanks to whoever remember the link!)

The US is a net importer of smart people... that may change though.

Could you say the expectation of novel discovery is to blame, though? If it becomes harder to blaze new trails, but the expectation of discovery remains the same, then scientists who wish to keep getting recognition and pay must find ways to fabricate discoveries to keep up.

I would say the expectation that novel discovery is easy could be to blame. Also that the incentives discourage the process from working in a way that would allow further novel discoveries. Science needs per review and replication of results to work properly. If the incentives discourage this then novel discovery gets harder. Scientific discovery is a long-term game which means business methods are poorly suited to managing it.

As an aside, that quote is apocryphal, by the way. The actual Charles H Duell said almost the exact opposite

Reply on news.ycombinator.com