Science expressed in terms of what happens is getting in the way of progress
nautil.us
nautil.us
Moreover the examples the author pulls out as "not being studied by science" are BS: DNA is heavily studied by disciplines such as biology, biochemistry, and genetics. Are these not science? Other counterfactual examples are covered by engineering: like the steam engine.
This is a shallow, uninsightful, and myopic view of the relationship between science and progress. Moreover - and I'll admit to having only skimmed the last third because I was getting so fed up - it never seems to get to any point. The try-hard profundity yields... nothing.
On the contrary, if I had to describe theoretical physics in a nutshell, I would say it is entirely about what is impossible. Pick any physical law or theorem. I cannot exceed the speed of light. I cannot globally decrease entropy. I cannot measure a force between two static electric charges in vacuum that deviates from the Coulomb force law.
If any scientist actually thinks this, then science is in deep trouble.
The conservation of energy is mentioned in the article, but that’s old science. Theory of computation is implied as another example, but that didn’t come out of this new science either. The other examples look like trivialities, but I may be missing something here.
Find the odd one out.
For example, there are four fundamental forces and a table of fundamental particles. Why? Don't know, we just noticed them.
All of chemistry seems to be determined by properties and interactions of electrons, which also determines biology. Where do these electrons come from? Don't know, just there.
The gravitational constant pops up in bunch of equations. So does the speed of light. Why do they have their specific values? Why is there even a speed limit in the universe (which expanding space violates)? Don't know, we just noticed it.
The theory of relativity has quite clear thoughts about why there is a "speed limit". Entire branches of physics ponder about why and when electrons and other particles came about.
The shrugging "Don't know, we just noticed it." that you ascribe to scientists' reactions does not match reality.
Where do electrons come from? Or any of the other fundamental particles. Please, enlighten the world of science.
"Fundamental constant" means "we don't know why it has that value, we just noticed it does"
You're proving my point, people don't like science because folks like you make it seem filled with all knowing experts when really the most fundamental questions are not answered
I say this because it undermines your hope that epistemology and metaphysics is merely a matter of explaining where electrons "come from"; the question is so wrong that it must be entirely rethought. An electron isn't a dot in space, but a behavior smeared throughout a region.
I thought that the reason that folks didn't like science is because they were preoccupied with Jehovah/etc. but perhaps I'm wrong.
People don't like fields when there's a bunch of gatekeepers who can't resist posing as experts and shun people who ask simple questions which they can't provide answers for. That's part of Eric Weinstein's critique of today's particle physics community which I share.
I'm asking because you are giving the impression that whatever answer you get, you will reply to with "but why?" and "that's just passing the buck down".
A fundamental thing about science is that we'll likely never have all the answers. You can always ask "but why?". That's not gatekeeping but the difference to religions which often times claims to have the final answer. (Ironically there is a lot of gatekeeping in religion since not everybody is permitted to interpret scripture as they wish.)
I find irony in that this statement in the title isn't actually a fact.