If we look back at the rate of change in science, there was a period from the 1600s to about 1930s where science changed not only totally, but repeatedly totally changed in a series of enormous revolutionary phases.
In contrast, in many areas the science that was being taught in the 1950s could be taught today, with just the change of examples in use to update it. That is NOT because we have discovered all there is to discover, because that is what they constantly thought in the past … until the next revolution came. The reality is that science is stagnating. Yes, there is still a little progress, and in some subjects a lot. But it’s like a wildfire that has nearly burnt to its natural end. The rate of progress is rapidly declining, as shown by the hostility to sceptics.
The simple truth now, is that if anyone of the great scientists of the 19th century came up with anything so radical today, they would get shunned and pushed out of academia. There are fewer and fewer areas where it is permitted to challenge the status quo, and therefore we are already in stagnation.
Indeed, I have done that several times. My latest work, which has taken about 4 years, has reached a stage where I need to make it presentable. But, whilst I enjoyed the research for the sake of the research, I am now faced with a problem. The only reason to make it presentable for others … is if others want to read it. And, I have yet to find even one person who seems interested (a little difficult when I’m NOT saying what I’ve found … because it is EXTREMELY REVOLUTIONARY in its field). Indeed, it is actually a theory about potential new way to progress knowledge … focussing on human evolution as a “test case”. But, that “test case” has been a gold mine for revolutionary ideas.
My current projection, if I did publish the two, maybe three books it would take to write it up, is that I would probably have more books than actual sales. Indeed, I would end up giving away the books in order to “raise interest” in a subject that just doesn’t want to hear from someone like me.
The truth now, is that there are a few areas where innovation is still allowed. Computer games are one. But, if they follow the same trajectory as happened to early software like word processers, in 100 years, despite repeated “required” updates costing a lot of money, games will still look pretty much like they now look. Or more likely, the basic concepts will stagnate, and like films … there will be minor update to the plot lines …. which have to adhere to extreme politicised “guidelines” that brook no innovation.
What will science research look like in 100years?
If science is no longer about scepticism = progress = overturning the old, then what will they do for “research”?
If you look at the way history “PhDs” are done, we can get an answer. The problem for historians of the ancient past, is that there are relatively few texts and these don’t change. So, having translated the text and found what it means, there would not appear to be much left to research. That is a problem for the PhDs. PhDs need “something new” … where nothing is changing.
To get around that problem, what they do is to just pick some ancient topic, claim the sources are “liars” and then make up a new alternative interpretations. So, rather than pick the most obvious interpretation, the sources are scoured to find “evidence” to push another, often a woke agenda version. And any evidence contrary to that interpretation is either ignored, or the author libelled as a “known liar”.
That is just what happened to the site of a battle now known as “Mons Graupius” (translation of: “The Mountain as shown”). There are now well over 30 claims to sites for Mons Graupius .. all 30 making claims (following the lead of the first academics) that “Tacitus was a known liar” (without any justification for that claim, which is just now accepted by the “Mons Graupius industry”) … and using that fake claim to cherry pick the evidence from the only source (Tacitus).
The irony is that if Tacitus is a proven liar (the claim they use) then he lied about the battle and it never existed … so stop wasting our time on a fake battle (if Tacitus is a habitual liar). Of course, he’s only a “liar” when they reach an inconvenient passage like “The Romans in sight of the sea”** … which rules out almost all the 30 sites.
So, I would guess in 100 years real science will be similarly dead and PhDs in “science” will start to look like history ones. They will start by claiming e.g. “Darwin/Einstein/Newton is a proven liar” (because every other PhD makes the same claim in order to justify a new “research”)… and then use that to justify some alternative and highly politicised “historical” interpretation. That probably means that “science” research will almost all be about the “history of science” … with no actual experiments.
Welcome to the future … you saw it first here!
**The text and most importantly the speech recorded by Tacitus of a Caledonian leader makes many references to the local geography of the battle field. One is that “the Romans are in sight of an unknown sea” (from memory). In other words, a sea has to be visible from close to the battlefield. That indicates a site viewing the sea, well away from any “sea” that the Romans then frequented. Which rules out almost all southern sites close to the Clyde-Forth & Clyde-Tay lines and certainly any so far from the sea that it cannot be seen anywhere close. The hill on which Mons Graupius was fought was also quite distinct, and for the tops to be part of the battle, it could not have been very high. So, we can rule out any “mountain”. We also know that in front of the hill was a “plain” that this area produced wheat or similar grains. Which basically rules out all but a couple of sites around Elgin and Forres. We know that “behind” the Caledonians was a rocky coast, which rules out any site where the Caledonians are facing the sea. These factoids are all landscape descriptions which have absolutely no political bearing. They are just incidental information that got woven in with no purpose other than to help tell events. So, even if Tacitus was a liar, there would be absolutely no point him lying about these, especially when 1000s of Romans could have vouched for their accuracy or otherwise. The only reason to make them up is if the entire battle was made up, in which case there is absolutely no point speculating where it is.
Note: At Elgin the hill faces south to a plain with a rocky coast behind. At Forres, the local coast is not rocky, and likely the Romans would approach the hill parallel to the coast. But the other side of the Moray firth may be visible and that coast is notoriously rocky. “Behind” has to be interpreted as “the natural path of retreat” which then has to mean a path going up to wick along the coast. That is not a great match, but it is at least arguable. But basically, most people suggesting sites, ignore this factoid and pretend it doesn’t exist.
