Are we witnessing the end of science?

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/22/end-science-unified-theory-mavericks)

Physicists only really understand 4% of the universe's constituents – the rest is mysterious dark energy and dark matter (represented here in purple, flanking the Bullet colliding galaxy clusters). Photograph: AP

Wired magazine is well known for its catchy cover lines. I won't forget one from 2007. Alongside a mocked-up image of a yellowing lab notebook and magnifying lens, it proclaimed: "The end of science: The quest for science used to begin with grand theories; now it begins with massive amounts of data."

Scientists and science commentators often say that if yesterday's science needed outstanding individuals such as Darwin and Einstein, tomorrow's theories will be shaped by the vast quantities of data pouring forth from networked computers and from the labours of big research teams working in areas such as particle physics, the human genome and astronomy.

The End of Science was also the title of a book published in 1996 by science writer John Horgan, though Horgan thought the pursuit of science was coming to an end for different reasons. He claimed that the basic scaffolding of the natural world is now mostly understood – the big bang theory, the structure of DNA and evolution by natural selection and the periodic table of elements are not going to change. Yes, many refinements are needed in our understanding of how things work, but as we are closer to reality in so many fields, the chances of seeing revolutionary new thinking will be that much less.

Will we never witness a scientific revolution again? And will tomorrow's theories be guided by big data rather than revolutionary ideas?

I recently put these questions to particle physicist Alison Wright, chief editor of the journal Nature Physics and to Lewis Wolpert, pioneering biologist from University College London, when I chaired a debate on the future of science.

Lewis's view is that fundamental biology is now unlikely to throw up any new surprises: there is much we don't know, but the fundamental architecture won't change. Alison takes a similar view for physics and says that we shouldn't expect any new shocks to the system, though, unlike Lewis, she recognises that you can never say never.

I'm with Alison on this – something tells me that physics has the potential to take off in directions that we cannot predict. Many physicists would like to see a single theory explain all of the fundamental forces of nature, or at the very least see experimental verification of the Standard Model of particle physics.

There are good reasons for this. Unification in physics has a long history – electricity and magnetism were unified in the 1800s, and later mass and energy were found to be interchangeable. In the latter half of the 20th century, two further forces were unified: electromagnetism and the "weak" force. But for the past 30 years, experimental verification of theory in physics has been more limited. This may well be because scientists have lacked the right equipment – results from the Large Hadron Collider at Cern could break the logjam.

But you do see something similar going on in physicists' attempts to unpack the composition of the universe. According to the big bang model, our universe is made up of around 4% of normal (atomic) matter; 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy. Some research groups claim to have found a signature for dark matter – but their results have not been corroborated by others. As for the idea of dark energy, Alison describes it as a "sticking plaster" that masks the fact that we don't really know what it represents.

But if we assume for a minute that physics holds the potential for a revolution in thinking, would we be able to see one coming?

Revolutions in scientific thinking are always difficult – but perhaps one reason why we may see fewer of them in the future is because of the highly professional way in which modern science is organised. It takes a lot of courage to challenge conventionally accepted views, and it needs a certain amount of stamina to constantly battle those who want to protect the status quo. Mavericks do not do well in large organisations, which is what some scientific fields have become.

Progress in science needs researchers who are not afraid – or who are encouraged and rewarded – to ask awkward and difficult questions of theory and of new data. It is easier to question mainstream views if you are independently wealthy, as many scientists in previous ages tended to be. But I wonder how many of us would do so if we were employed by the state and our career progression depended on the validation of our peers?

Ehsan Masood is a science writer and chaired Nature's Big Science Debate on the future of physics and biology, which took place on 8 June

Transhumanism: Your Bodies, Yourself

There's a theory about human progress posed by philosopher Peter Drucker who surmises that cultural evolution is similar to biological evolution insofar as cultures experience punctuated equilibrium as well. We are, according to some (and I happen to agree), living in just such a time. The lives of people a few decades from now will be so radically changed by science that their lifestyles could be rendered unrecognizeable. One of the most promising prospects for human modification is called Transhumanism.

Ok, so we're all fairly well acquainted with what Transhumanism is thanks to the Bionic Woman and the Six Million Dollar Man. But this technology actually ventures beyond finely articulated prosthetic limbs into indefinite life extension therapies and full body transplants. A person's memories, quirks, intellect and personality can be stored on a CD-Rom and exist solely in cyberspace or be implanted into a different body. It's no surprise that Stephen Hawking is a huge proponent of this type of research.

I know the naysayers will be bellowing "Machines will enslave humankind -- just like the Matrix!" This, to me, is utter nonesense. The fear of malicious robots is more psychological than practical in my view. We look at these blocky chunks of moving metal and see a loss of individuality. Because we have a theory of mind we try to project ourselves into the expressionless body of the bot and imagine what it's like to be this automaton. It draws out our own fears of losing our unique selves. Anyways, enough psychoanalyzing because the machines that are around today will not be anything like the robots of the future. Scientists have mapped the human genome -- (Wo)Man's information code -- and will in the next decade or two identify and map the human brain. With this knowledge in tow it will then be possible to create some subtle and emotional robotic implants capable of true intelligence.

As a side note, isn't science grand? Seriously, science might be the new religion and I mean that only as a compliment. Hundreds of thousands of human minds cooperating with each other for the betterment of the species, often times without the guarantee of monetary compensation. Every miracle religion promises science is en route to actually fulfilling. Religion says you will be given a new body -- science is achieving it. Religion says the lame shall walk -- science is doing it. Religion says you will live forever -- guess what, science is working on it.

How will human/robotic hybrids effect social life? Will interpersonal relationships be enriched or diluted? And what of the specialness of life, will it be even more sacrosanct in a Transhumanistic future or will it be cheapened by this sort of technology?

TechnoCalyps: Transhuman Part 2

TechnoCalyps: Transhuman Part 3

TechnoCalyps: Transhuman Part 4

TechnoCalyps: Transhuman Part 5

Technocalyps: Transhuman 6

Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

Table of Contents: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

December 19, 1997 -

ID Proponents: William F. Buckley Jr., Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski

Evolutionist: Barry Lynn, Eugenie C. Scott, Michael Ruse, and Kenneth Miller

Transcript: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p4...

Audio: http://www.bringyou.to/FiringLine1997...

Creationism Museum Documentary

Leave your Bibles at home

Let's settle this silly little debate once and for all and move on to something more relevant like Rosie leaving The View - does God exist? St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have tried to provide a definitive yes, and, judging from the fact that we're still having this conversation, they apparently failed. But you know whose names will rise far beyond the list of theologians who've attempted this proof before: Ray Comfort (Christian author) and Kirk Cameron (Mike Seaver from Growing Pains).

They believe they possess such compelling evidence of God's existence that they've challenged two atheists to a debate on Nightline. Not only that, but Comfort promises to be persuasive without drawing upon Biblical sources and not mentioning his personal faith. We're keeping it scientific here, folks. And while we're on the topic of science you know what's NOT scientific...evolution. Through the course of the debate not only will Comfort and Cameron put the kibosh on an ages-old question, but prove all you dogmatic evolutionists wrong. Sorry, every major scientist in the world, you've been placing your faith in evolution like a sucker.

Putting aside Comfort and Cameron's apparently prodigious grasp of the ungraspable, why does evolution have to be "debunked"? It is possible to maintain the concept of a divine creator and evolution simultaneously, there seems to be a meta-consciousness and self-awareness about the universe which points to something grander. Evolution generates the same solutions to different problems such as blood, bones, fur, etc. This, to those who are so inclined, is a pretty good place to start connecting God and Evolution. But keep in mind this isn't science but philosophy. I do not advocate the teaching of intelligent design in school as hard fact. It is a matter of speculation and discourse. People like Comfort and Cameron would do well to take their ideas and do with them what the natural world does automatically. Evolve.

Here's the article