The video on the nature of science is very interesting. I'm especially fascinated by the way one theory comes after another to make it better and sometimes to make it less sensible.

My question on this topics is, do you believe that scientists will ever get to the end of their discovering? Will there ever be a unifying theory of everything such that, all known things will be explained and any new thing that appears, like in the case of the particle zoo, will perfectly fit into this theory?

What about this quite famous quotation:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

Source: http://physics.info/space-time/

This has been attributed to Lord Kelvin (of temperature scale fame) and also alternatively to Albert Michelson (involved in the calculation of the speed of light). Then along came quantum physics... As things turned out, whoever said it was deeply wrong!

Then there was a book published in the 1990s by John Horgan, called "The End of Science", in which he interviewed many prominent scientists about the possibility that most of the important things in the scientific field have alresdy been discovered. Try:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Science-Knowledge-Twilight-Scientific/dp/0553061747

So what do you think about Yaw's question? Would you agree with Horgan? Or more with Henry Miller, who once said:

"In expanding the field of knowledge we but increase the horizon of ignorance."

Source: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/knowledge-and-ignorance-27889.html

Does this quotation apply well to science?

I don't think that science will ever come to an end.The more scientists find out about things, the more they realize how much they didn't know. Science is growing, especially in the world we live in today. We may not be able to create theories that may change the direction of science but there will obviously be improvement. Example:The periodic table was discovered centuries ago, yet new elements are still being discovered, like Governmentium (discovered on 18th September 2006). This video was very interesting and it shows how theories were developed and how some of them were unified to aid in the discovery of something else.Science has a domino effect, where discoveries triggered other discoveries.

Hikari,

A few thoughts come to mind.

As we have discussed, Kuhn proposed periodic upheavals in scientific knowledge that he called revolutions. Evidence that doesn't fit current theories and interpretations accumulates and eventually triggers a shift of paradigm that involves the abandonment of some previously sacrosanct beliefs and unexamined assumptions. What examples of this kind of process can we produce in support of Kuhn?

You say that scientific knowledge often builds smoothly upon itself with a sort of "domino effect" - even perhaps accelerating as the expansion of knowledge creates new possibilities for further even more rapid expansion.

Which of these two processes do you think represents most of what goes on in science? Kuhn would probably say that your idea fits into his. He would say that you have described "normal science", as he put it - ie what happens between revolutions.

But don't you think that much of modern scientific knowledge is beyond Kuhn's model? Aren't there big areas of scientific knowledge that are permanently beyond dispute now? Such as...?

To take your example of the periodic table, surely all the naturally-occurring elements have been discovered - all that is happening now is that scientists are every now and then able to construct even bigger (and therefore highly unstable) atoms artificially in the lab - "new elements" that fit into the periodic table pattern already established. Doesn't this indicate that (a) the organizing principles of the periodic table (periods and groups) are undisputably correct, and (b) that most of the basis of chemistry has already been worked out.

Let me be provocative here - what is left for chemists to discover? Couldn't the Kelvin/Michelson quote in my previous post be accurately applied to chemistry as we understand it now?

I must agree with Yaw that the video is a rather remarkable and enlightening one. What I find most intriguing is the uncertainty attached to our living. What if what we have accepted the world to be is in reality just a delusion? How real is our world? All these questions pertain however its funny how we hold strongly to the equations, laws and theories that scientists have defined our world with. We forget it could only be an ILLUSION!

I disagree with Prof Andrew Jackson to a large extent when he says ‘we shouldn’t be concerned about the true nature of reality. It is enough that it works.’ I believe that (even though this seems impossible) if the true nature of reality is deeply understood and mined, it will be a good stepping stone to correct all the wrongs science has enticed us to believe are right. Professor Andrew Jackson, I honestly can’t wait for the day we will know the true nature of reality; when we may actually find out that most of the scientists we have held in high esteem because of their ‘brilliant’ discoveries actually persuaded us into believing the non-existent. I like the way Prof David Deutsch presents it that since reality is not understood, we are confused about so many things like the multiversity of each atom and the possibility of another Universe.


David Deutsch further highlights that ‘Observation creates the Universe.’
For me, that statement is pregnant with so much meaning. First of all, it makes me aware that our Universe has actually been painted by our senses. This then means that since our senses have their limitations, there is a limited part of the world we see right? -THE ILLUSION OF REALITY!!

This video is truly captivating, one which drew my attention to Max Planck's saying, 'Science progresses funeral after funeral.' From the video, it is evident that there is a systematic approach through which scientific knowledge is acquired. The only problem I have with the natural science's seemingly increasing database of knowledge is that will it ever be enough? Even if we manage to unveil all the secrets of the universe and reality itself, what next?

Another thing I found intriguing about the video was that each scientist mentioned in the video were unique in their own way. Dirac's mind-boggling mathematical mind, Feynman's pragmatic approach to science and Gell-Mann, the orthodox scientist. I feel that their personalities are sort of reflected in their kind of work they produced.

I like Charles points. I'm particularly interested in the way we may never reach the ture picture of reality because we really dont know the true nature of reality. What if what we kow know is all that we really can know. How do we measure the end of science.

I do still believe that the end of science exists. I believe that one day, we will get to a point that we will know everything. THere may have a be a couple of extreme paradigm shifts/ revolutions and people will have a very hard time changing some of their perceptions but we will eventually get to the end. We definitely cannot go on forever.

The major problem will however be knowing that we have gotten there. We have no yard stick so knowing that this is the greatest point of scientific knowledge will be a very big problem.

I actually disagree with Yaw when he says 'that one day, we will get to a point that we will know everything.' For me, this day will never come because the universe is not stagnant in its nature..or is it?

Let's take a brief look at 3 of the ways of knowing. Language, sense perception, reason.

There are so many limitations with our sense perception as indicated by Prof David Deutsch that we will NEVER be able to unearth all the mysteries of this universe, even if they are right before us.we are blinded by our restrictons.

With reasoning, the universe keeps changing. as it does, our minds must also do so in the same fashion to keep up with happenings and to adjust theories and equations. even more, with our reasoning, we are actually limited in various ways. One main reason is that we don't know everything. Another being that our reasoning is to a large extent moulded by the other ways of knowing-they are inter-twined. the limitations of these other ways of knowing therefore indirectly become limitations of reasoning.

Language to some extent affects the way we think. Our perceptions and judgement can be moulded by language. A typical example is the viaduct de milau bridge and the GERMAN and Franco responses/descriptions.

The limitations of these three seem quite many. How much more an amalgamatian of the limitations of ALL ways of knowing?

But then again this is something interesting to chew on..'Will there ever be the end of science?'

I personally think that it will be impossible to come to the end of science. The video even shows that in spite of the many revolutions that have occurred pertaining to our knowledge of the atom, we are still a long way off from determining how exactly the world as we see it is created from this fundamental aspect of nature.

How can there possibly be an end to science when scientists are still not sure how the earth was formed, or even how the universe came into being. There are many theories about this such as the BIG BANG THEORY, but which of these is the truth? Say for instance we finally find the right answer to this question, scientists will then set out to create another universe to prove their discovery and after they have created this universe, they will set out to understand various aspects of this new universe and so on and so forth.

I agree with the assertion that our world is dynamic, we now know that the universe is expanding, and as it expands it will continually produce new things for scientists to discover. Science will therefore never end.