It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XPLodER
Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by XPLodER
Let's put this in some context shall we before everyone starts running with "they think we know everything" which hunt against science, as is so prevalant on this site, shall we.
The article is not saying we know everything and there is nothing left to discover. He claims that the basic framework for all of the sciences has been laid . . . we've discovered the basic principles, so anything new is going to add to exisiting fields (say dark energy/matter).
He also states he's been working with/studying genius for 30yrs, and his position is also based on the changing paradigm of research. Now, we no longer see a lone-wolf "crazy" scientist researching in private to come up with new ideas. We now work in large teams working a project and any new breakthroughs will be the work of teams and not some exalted "genius".
you have to admit this guy discounts the home grown lone scientist, and "amuses" that teams of white coated guys with government funding will always out compete the lone genius
He also goes on to say he "hopes he is wrong on this issue", but his findings lead to that conclusion.
he is wrong on two levels, the definition of genius, and the inability of ordinary people to make remarkable advances for man kind in isolation.
But . . . let's run with the hyperbole, cuz Jersey Shore attitude towards scientific articles is more fun than examining it with critical thinking.
absurd articles garner absurd reprocesses, i cant help but find his conclusions .....well silly,
and that leads me to laugh when i write these answers. no more geniuses REALLY?
EDIT - the article also didn't say that we wouldn't label humans as genius, just the superstar-type icons (Einstein) are a thing of the past.
like steven hawking?
Comprehension, people . . . please! Deny Ignorance, right?edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
i comprehend this, genius weather by number of folds in the brain or artistic expresion is not something that can go away because of lack of super star status
ps i am still laughing
xploder
Where do I start . . . with confirmation bias. Please show me where he says "geniuses" won't exist? He is talking about the single guy that finds a new field . . . He is coming to that conclusion based on our current paradigm for research. You are inserting a lot that isn't there. Again . . . comprehension shouldn't include your emotional response to the message.
You're not the only one that disagrees with him . . . so do most scientists that phys.org spoke with on the subject.
However . . . nothing of what you are inferring his point to be is backed up by what he said. So the absurd response I see is by those that suffer from a lack of critical thinking and honest recitation of this article.
Yes, like Stephen Hawking . . . However, I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking didn't travel back from the future to tell us that this guy was wrong and then just decide to stay in this time. The article is talking about his thought on the future, no?
Once again . . . where did he say "genius" as in insight or capability quotient is going away. He is talking about icons who are exalted, due to their genius status. His reasons are cleary laid out and ration. Whether you or I agree is a different matter.
At this point, you are backtracking because you can't fit your hyperbolic cliff jumping into the article. He didn't claim that genius as a concept wouldn't exist. He didn't claim there wouldn't not be geniuses. He never claimed we know everything,
This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works
Read more at: phys.org...
so no need for geniuses. He even said that he hopes he is wrong. But you keep claiming these things . . . why? Did you even read the article or his original commentary in Nature (you know opinion piece, not scientific paper).
Well, you and all the geniuses keep laughing it up then . . . me and the rest of the mentally challenged, critical thinking, reading comprehension crowd think that intentional misrepresentation and hyperbole of an article to further your personal biases, is willfully ignorant and deceitful. So I guess . . . laugh it up fuzzball. We'll keep laughing at you!
Originally posted by yourmaker
then one day our minds are blown to find out Earth is sitting in a dark jar in the corner of the inventory in an alien laboratory...
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by XPLodER
What about the flying saucer drive mechanism.
Oh yeah some people know that but most do not.
Sorry.
...there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because...
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by XPLodER
This isn't really a fresh idea. I think I have already heard this during a Philosophy of science class years ago.
It is very likely correct to say that there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because all our current technology depends on it. Since our technology works, we know the science behind it is correct.
That in no way means that there are no geniuses. Except, the discoveries they make are much more specialized. They may be as brilliant as the discoveries by Newton and Einstein etc, but they won't dramatically change the way we think in general, especially to the general public. In the select group of people who have enough knowledge on the subject it may well be a earth shattering discovery though.
It also has to do with the mental capability of the human brain. Even if somewhere in the future we find a completely new model that describes nature even better than our current models, it will very likely be so complex that no single person can come up with it. It would have to be the result of a cooperation of hundreds, maybe thousands of “Einsteins”. You see this for example happening at CERN.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by -PLB-
...there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because...
there are such glaring, gaping, holes in physics.
what about the negative-valued solutions (advanced wave) to Klein-Gordon? this alone is proof positive that we can only account for *at best half* of theoretical phenomena ...and that modern science is intellectually dishonest when it suits them.
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1900
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries." - from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." - Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894