a thought along these lines that has long niggled at me:
the issue with modern foundational science is that is has become incredibly specialized and rarified. where once there were "renaissance men" who could be at the cutting edge of many fields now it takes a whole career to get anywhere near a tiny edge piece in just one.
this has a pernicious dual effect:
1. by the time you get there, you tend to have been sucked into an orthodoxy by the exigent needs of funding, publication, and tenure and will seek to defend it from challenge.
2. it makes interdisciplinary work much harder as few are cutting edge in multiple fields and interdisciplinary interaction is where so many breakthroughs and interesting findings occur.
everything is siloed and gathered into dogmatic fiefdoms desperate to never change paradigms. it's a sort of recipe for stultification and stagnation.
i suspect the future is in getting fields to interact with one another as was once the purpose of collecting them in one place (like research parks or universities). this mission has been lost.
in its rediscovery may lie the the path to once more making progress.
(oddly, this may be a field for which AI is better suited than humans...)
My understanding is they never actually observed the higgs boson, they observed previously known particles acting a way which they claim proves the existence of the thingamawhat they were looking for.
a thought along these lines that has long niggled at me:
the issue with modern foundational science is that is has become incredibly specialized and rarified. where once there were "renaissance men" who could be at the cutting edge of many fields now it takes a whole career to get anywhere near a tiny edge piece in just one.
this has a pernicious dual effect:
1. by the time you get there, you tend to have been sucked into an orthodoxy by the exigent needs of funding, publication, and tenure and will seek to defend it from challenge.
2. it makes interdisciplinary work much harder as few are cutting edge in multiple fields and interdisciplinary interaction is where so many breakthroughs and interesting findings occur.
everything is siloed and gathered into dogmatic fiefdoms desperate to never change paradigms. it's a sort of recipe for stultification and stagnation.
i suspect the future is in getting fields to interact with one another as was once the purpose of collecting them in one place (like research parks or universities). this mission has been lost.
in its rediscovery may lie the the path to once more making progress.
(oddly, this may be a field for which AI is better suited than humans...)
As Moore's Law collapses
As more replication crisises occur
As nothing new comes from pharma or physics
As we refine science vs discover anything new
As science slowly fossilizes
As our dominant culture asserts supremacy of one way
Slowly the seeds spread for revolutions in thought, discourse, science and culture
It'll be messy AF, but their is no better option.
Some part of society needs to go SS3
My understanding is they never actually observed the higgs boson, they observed previously known particles acting a way which they claim proves the existence of the thingamawhat they were looking for.