The End of Science?

[Pentcho Valev]

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universiti...1732330,00.html

"Prof Smith has said chemistry was not attracting enough students to make

it viable. Sussex follows Exeter, King's College London, Queen Mary

University of London and Dundee, which have also cut back on chemistry."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html

"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study

physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best

students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more

appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply.

In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific

illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack

the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in

their daily environment."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/co...1648111,00.html

"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as

Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he

made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact,

it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation

in the history of physics: E=mc2.

But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report

showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at

school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past

15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few

years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of

interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools.

Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could

afford to go to posh schools.

Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and

Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum

physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing

extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who

cares if we disappear?"

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/education/rese...hysicsprint.pdf

"Physics is in danger of disappearing as an identifiable subject from much

of state education, through redefinition to general science and teacher

shortage."

http://dogma.free.fr/txt/EK-ScienceQuiestion.htm

"Par ailleurs, on remarque qu’aujourd’hui, les thèses « relativistes », par

exemple celle de Paul Féyerabend[2], ont un impact très fort, notamment

dans les milieux étudiants. Même si leur diffusion s’accompagne de

contresens et de malentendus, elles servent de socle à des critiques de

plus en plus vives adressées aux professionnels de la recherche : Votre

science dit-elle réellement le vrai ? Comment osez-vous prétendre qu’elle

se réfère à la rationalité alors que les jugements esthétiques, les

préjugés métaphysiques et autres désirs subjectifs imprégnent sinon sa

démarche tout entière, du moins certaines de ses phases ? Votre légitimité

incontestée est-elle fondée sur autre chose que des effets de pouvoir ?"

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual

prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession

is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and

thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any

commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to

acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the

dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. So in a

sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the earliest scientists

were the prehistoric shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts

science on a par with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with

the argument of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much

in common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on

unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a duck,

quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck: I support

the argument that since there is no significant difference between science

and religion, science should be considered a religion! I would also agree

with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological differences between

science and the other religions. The other dominant religions are static

because their arguments are based on rigid doctrines set forth by their

founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, who have died long ago.

Science on the other hand, is a dynamic religion that was developed by many

men over a long period of time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the

scientific method, that demands that the arguments change to conform to the

evolving observational and experimental evidence.

The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia, which means

knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is just another word for

knowledge. An associate of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of

Physics at Eckerd College, once told me that students in his graduate

school used to joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one

considers the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates

modern physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of

the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that showed

Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use scientific

methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to consider that

they have two to three times more right to be called scientists then the so-

called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with Popper's argument that

observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an argument

beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very least, the scientist

should do more than pay lip service to the scientific method. The true

scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific method of testing

theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree with Seeds argument

that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does

not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of

the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they

should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to

believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,

and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be

considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the

professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political

reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

[Mostar]

ahh...fine, damb it ..ill become start that stupid chemestry.....Only because i like the show fullmetal alchemist.

[DAPRS]

Kids now adays are so damn hooked on TV and other forms of mindless "Entertainment" Most of the teens now a days have never even picked up a book for entertainment.

I am 17 years old and I can;t stand being in my classes with all the dumb ***** next to me complaining that graphing is too hard and that they got an F on their Planets quiz.

Soon the problem of stupid people will be so great that we will be living in a world made of of nothing but millions of "Homer simpson's" running around.

I am sick and tired of all these dumb ***** and there stupid ignorant minds.

It seems all they are interested in today is sports and celebreties ******* lives.

Oh well, sorry about the rant, I'm just very p***ed about this.

I am going to college for IT, and I hope to contribut to science as much as possible.

And thank you for starting this topic friends!!

[Raptor]

^The general IQ of the population is declining, because generally the dumber people are the ones having most kids, if you think it's bad now; just imagine what it'll be like in 20 years.

In my school, last year, only 25% of the students averaged a C or above, meaning 75% got a D maximum. Of the ones which are capable, roughly half of them are going on to study science in college (including me). I don't know if I'll have a career in it or not, but it interests me nonetheless.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Raptor X7

[DAPRS]

I agree rx

great stats, btw!!

People are just so pre-occupied with sports, sex, TV, and just mind-numbing enterntainment. No one cares any more.

I just hope I can contribut esomething to the world!!

[Mostar]

Kids now adays are so damn hooked on TV and other forms of mindless "Entertainment" Most of the teens now a days have never even picked up a book for entertainment.

I am 17 years old and I can;t stand being in my classes with all the dumb ***** next to me complaining that graphing is too hard and that they got an F on their Planets quiz.

Soon the problem of stupid people will be so great that we will be living in a world made of of nothing but millions of "Homer simpson's" running around.

I am sick and tired of all these dumb ***** and there stupid ignorant minds.

It seems all they are interested in today is sports and celebreties ******* lives.

Oh well, sorry about the rant, I'm just very p***ed about this.

I am going to college for IT, and I hope to contribut to science as much as possible.

And thank you for starting this topic friends!!

We need homer simpsons around to laugh at ! lol

err...i failed maths ! i need to study but my working enviroment is so **** !!!!!!!!!

we have all these idiots mucking around breaking stuff fighting and whatnot and all the teacher says is "you are responsiable for your own education!"

I should take this to the princlible, i just cant stand it in the test that we had, 30-34 people failed the test !!!

[Nadal]

Most agreed. I liked China's idea of limiting internet use to three hours a day for youths under 18. However, it then turned to where everyone can only be on it three hours a day, and they did it to strengthen their National Commanding Communism. However! The internet is probably where I get most of my education. So, instead of internet, perhaps TV? I dunno. TV has some educational programming, but it's much less effective than reading. Here's a solution to all problems, people need a license before they can have a kid! That'll solve it.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Nadal

[frogfish]

The TAG program is very different...My classmates are very studious...The 2009 Tag class average GPA is a 4.1.

Am a freshman, I am already taking 4 college courses. (AP)

[Raptor]

I liked China's idea of limiting internet use to three hours a day for youths under 18.

I highly disagree. If it wasn't for the internet I wouldn't know anything that I do. The public schools today are useless, the standard of teaching is mediocre at best, there's only so much you can learn from copying information from out of date textbooks. Many times in school we will spend an entire month 'learning' a subject, and at the end no one in the class will have learnt nothing, but then I go home and after 45min on the internet I can learn the entire syllabus.

[smallpackage]

^The general IQ of the population is declining, because generally the dumber people are the ones having most kids, if you think it's bad now; just imagine what it'll be like in 20 years.

In my school, last year, only 25% of the students averaged a C or above, meaning 75% got a D maximum. Of the ones which are capable, roughly half of them are going on to study science in college (including me). I don't know if I'll have a career in it or not, but it interests me nonetheless.

It's quite sad really. We're living in the world of achieving your greatest dreams. Who ever dreams of being a chemist? Hardly any do.

[Xenojjin]

The public schools today are useless

Agreed... the books I read outside of school when I was in HS were far superior then the required reading for english classes , and the knowledge I gained from the library and the internet or just simply going outside and meditating by a river gave me far more wisdom then the 4 year joke known as American high school. Im very glad to be out and hope that if I ever have kids there will exist some kind of conveniant alternative by the time they are teens.

[Unforgiven]

The public schools today are useless

Yep.

Teachers are highly underpaid, so of course they not gonna teach much. Plus they have to put up with all the stupid students who don't want to be their, and make it hard for everybody else who wants to at least pass. Arrogant *****.

I'm really p***ed at the level IT teachers are though. Don't know about now, but 5 years ago they were still teaching programming languages that were decades out of date, Turbo Pascal for example.

We're living in the world of achieving your greatest dreams. Who ever dreams of being a chemist?

Probably because theirs not as much left to discover as their was 100-200 years ago. Einstein and Newton [and a couple of others] did most of that already

Im very glad to be out and hope that if I ever have kids there will exist some kind of conveniant alternative by the time they are teens.

Their is, home schooling, and the Internet

[Nadal]

Bush's new Education plan isn't going to help either. The man really made a downfall on it. He's trying to raise standards by punishing schools! I mean, we can't do any better if we don't have sufficiant funding! We need new and more superior textbooks. If every school in the country doesn't raise a new percentage every year, they'll put funding out of the school. I can't believe this was approved and being put into effect.

[Bella-Angelique]

I know know of several honor students who dropped out of science majors for the simple reason that they researched and found there would be no jobs for them with those degrees.

The only ones who get hired, and not even all of them, are from the "posh" or ivy league universities known for science such as MIT or Rice.

Corporations are not interested in losing profit by investing in new design as long as they can get by with selling the same old stuff. Monopolies have always led to stagnation.

The few high trained techs they need to support the ivy leaguers can be insourced or their work outsourced to low wage nations.

[smallpackage]

Probably because theirs not as much left to discover as their was 100-200 years ago. Einstein and Newton [and a couple of others] did most of that already

Their is, home schooling, and the Internet

Are you kidding? There's a lot more to discover. Tons more. We don't even know the 1/100th of it. It's just getting more complex.

Yes, there is homeschooling and the internet. I'm personally cyberschooled. Public school disgusts me.

[Nadal]

Science is never ending, however it IS becoming limited. Such as Geography. Science is limited to some of the aspects of mystery, we know most of the basis for everything. It's the complications and complexities of these structures what we must further study and research. I was thinking of becoming a botanist until I found out it was limited to agricultural loop study.

[magnetar]

I imagine corporations in America spend disproportionaly on legal accounts and compliance (auditing for stocks), versus fundamental (basic) research.

"Lawyers may be the punch line to innumerable jokes,

but here is a fact that is not so funny: large law firms

are just about the most profitable businesses in the

world. The top 100 U.S. law firms maintain profit

margins of just about 40%. That is more than three

times as high as the operating margins of America's

largest publicly traded companies."

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL

statistics/01.jpg

statistics/03.jpg

statistics/44.jpg

statistics/07.jpg

statistics/28.jpg

statistics/18.jpg

statistics/tt04-01.htm

Edited April 18, 2006 by magnetar

[The Silver Thong]

It's funny really, when one thinks that there is an end, that just means another begining.

I myself must believe that science will continue. It would seem to me that the end of knowledge would mean we are the GOD'S and all knowing. Is that possible?

[frogfish]

Science will never end...We are just starting to unlock potential in some fields...Like genetics and medicine.

[RamboIII]

universities known for science such as MIT or Rice.

see frog, Rice is an excellent school

[Nadal]

Mammal/Human regeneration. Increasing Life Span. Astrophysics.

[Wingman]

I think that there are less people going into chemistry and physics because they're just going into different fields. Chemistry and physics aren't the only sciences, heck, here's a whole list of fields. But I do hope that they don't go extinct, that would be horrible. I mean, just imagine the truckloads of knowledge that would be doomed to die due to disinterest. Before we know it, the whole world will become that which is described in the book Fahrenheit 451!

[frogfish]

see frog, Rice is an excellent school

I never said they were not...I just said some were better

Mammal/Human regeneration. Increasing Life Span

Thos are not even fields! Medical researchers have better things to do than increase life span.

Astrophysics.

What about Astrophysics?

Edited April 21, 2006 by frogfish

[RabidCat]

Very likely that the continuing explosion of electronics and computer science is sucking up a lot of talent. More talent there, I think, than any other science. Somebody's got to design and build the stuff the other sciences use.

And, from experience, there are many good schools and many bad schools. Some of the best engineers I ever worked with were self-educated, and as such, didn't have the standard limitations of well educated engineers: I never once worked with a self-taught who said "You can't do that because...." This attitude of "try anything at least once" is why the skunk works is successful.

[Zking]

The general IQ of the population is declining, because generally the dumber people are the ones having most kids, if you think it's bad now; just imagine what it'll be like in 20 years.

In my school, last year, only 25% of the students averaged a C or above, meaning 75% got a D maximum. Of the ones which are capable, roughly half of them are going on to study science in college (including me). I don't know if I'll have a career in it or not, but it interests me nonetheless.

That is extremely sad. My schools aren't any better though. I mean I am in an advanced placement/gifted program and it astounds me how so many supposedly "gifted" students do horribly. I mean the majority of them are on the verge of C and D's in some classes. I mean I'm a straight A student, and most of the books I have read, very few peopl have heard about. I mean no one in that class has ever heard of War and Peace (im not kidding). Most of them havent even decided where to go to college. I am a straight A student and I intend to go to MIT or Cal-Tech Major in Nanotechnology, Nuclear physics, Neurology, and Biomechanical engineering. Now of course not all of those at once, but over the course of my year in college. But I am shocked by the intellectual capacity of most of the other Gifted students. It's a sad, sad world when our IQ points are going down. *sigh's*