WHY WE DON’T YET LIVE IN THE “WORLD OF TOMORROW”

Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 3 months ago to Science
37 comments | Share | Flag


I've always held a strong belief in the individual's contribution to the large steps made in human knowledge vs. the institution's, particularly as it applies to objective men of the mind.
This writer brings that belief into sharp illustration. But can we break the institutional chains?

"The Prison of Science

Since I don’t for a moment believe that we’ve discovered all that can be known, the obvious conclusion is that physics is being held in a sort of stasis.

My argument has been this:

Institutions are oppositional to individual will, and individual will is the only thing that creates breakthroughs in science.

Albert Einstein agrees with me, by the way. See this:

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.

And this:

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.

And this:

Great spirits have always been violently oppressed by mediocre minds.

Within an institution, a scientist must either please the authorities or see his work jettisoned. And scientific grants always have to please authorities.

So, who are these “authorities”? They would certainly include government bureaucrats, but the authorities that really matter here are older scientists who have given themselves over to institutional politics. These are the more common oppressors of new and different ideas.

There’s an old joke that reflects this:

Q: How does physics progress?

A: One funeral at a time.

The oppressors of new scientific theories are entrenched in scientific institutions. From there, they either allow or disallow almost every research project. And anyone who is not part of those institutions is ridiculed, excluded, and ignored.

It was farm boys, outsiders, and self-educated people who invented radio, television, the airplane, the electric light, the telegraph, the phonograph, the automobile, radar, and much more."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Going to play devil's advocate a bit here with this comment just because you set it up so well.

    If you aren't going to be able to see profit or value from an investment in your lifetime, wouldn't that investment then be labeled altruism?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    John Galt combined the functions of basic researcher and inventor. As I mentioned: he eked out some payment for his basic discoveries by offering them as a paid lecture course. But what he actually was doing was building a fund of basic knowledge that he could then turn into useful inventions.

    And remember: fresh out of college, he went to work for an engine company and invented a breakthrough-new kind of engine. If the world weren't so crazy he could have made a fortune with that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 3 months ago
    Does anyone read "State Science Institute' in here? Investment bankers would be a better fit, except they are also bound by the expectation of quick results and profits. What's needed are those investors who have deep enough pockets and are willing look at the long view, perhaps beyond their lifetimes, for the advancement of knowledge
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago
    To overcome this you have to have money. Another thing that could be slowing things down is it was easier to get from 1 to 75 inventions (just for an example) than it will be to get to 76.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Inventions build upon one another. There is not a scarcity. I disagree that "76" is harder to come up with than 1-75.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not sure about the money issue except that the Feds (the major source of funding) rely on institutional review and guidance on when and where to grant or provide funds.. Physicist have argued for some 100 years about trying to get the Standard Model and Quantum Theory to match with almost no real advance other than hidden dimensions. Maybe that result has a lot to do with those with vested interest pushing for work and Doctoral students to support their previous works.

    I tend to think that DoD and DARPA, with their secretiveness are also having a big impact on the release of ideas into the scientific public, thus restricting the spark of new ideas, particularly when it comes to energy applications such as fusion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 3 months ago
    It appears that 'men of the mind' are being driven from science. Federal (statist) funding for research seems to be much of the problem combined with consensus science.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo