Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j68ai1f wrote

Tbh, I always thought the whole “disruptive science has slowed down” thing was misunderstood by most. In order for a discovery to be disruptive to a field of science, it has to turn the current understanding of the field on its head. (Which implies that previous theories and ideas were incorrect all along). Once a field matures over time, it’s only natural that there will be less “disruptive” discoveries as our understanding of those fields become more and more concrete.

In other words, it’s not something that needs to be “overcome”. It’s a good sign that our current science is becoming more and more bulletproof and undeniable. (Unlike in the past, where we’d have a theory that was totally wrong, and then some new discovery would “disrupt” the industry.) It just means we’re actually starting to understand the world around us for real now.

19

kalavala93 OP t1_j68b0v3 wrote

As I read that you sounded like a sage.

3

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j68b87e wrote

Lmao… Hopefully you meant that as compliment bro. Either way that’s how I’m gonna take this. 😂

1

kalavala93 OP t1_j68ccbu wrote

I did. Some is always a compliment. One thing I read about is thr burden of knowledge is higher...like it takes more time for people to learn something but my problem with this take is I feel like good science is the ability to consolidate information..for example for us to be able to have a nuclear powered engine in an aircraft carrier we had to have a diesel engine which was born from a steam engine. I don't know anyone who makes steam engines anymore nor does someone need to learn how to make a steam engine in order to make a nuclear reactor engine. Isn't science about consolidating old science?

2

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j68dk6w wrote

Yeah, I just thought you might have been being sarcastic haha.

I agree that burden of knowledge probably isn’t that big of a factor tho. I just chalk it up to there being less “unknowns” or incorrect ideas that need to be disrupted then there were in the past. It’s similar to how the rate of new “land discovery” has slowed down since the days of Christopher Columbus as well right? It’s simply because we’ve discovered most of the land on Earth and now it’s hard to come by new undiscovered areas. Exact same thing is happening with science most likely.

1

Reddituser45005 t1_j68eytx wrote

I agree but I also think we are on the threshold of a time of rapid scientific advancement. As an example, we’ve known about protein folding and gene function for decades so advances driven by AlphaFold or CRISPR may not qualify as disruptive discoveries but they will lead to revolutionary changes in our approach to medicine and our understanding of underlying biology. That same process is happening across multiple fields where the foundational science is understood but rapid technological advances are transforming the way that knowledge is used.

2