Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

If the current level of academic scientific knowledge compared to the current level of average public scientific knowledge could be expressed as a ratio, would it be a bigger or smaller ratio than say 200 years ago? Or 2000?

In other words, is the average modern person more or less removed from the pinnacle of scientific thought now than they were in previous eras?

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

way less removed. at least in literate countries.
i make this claim without much argument behind it, though. the terms are pretty nebulous.

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

Many more people know the useful basics than ever in the past.
Many fewer appreciate the depths of esoteric knowledge which the specialists pursue

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

Yeah, I know it's an extremely vague question. I'm just trying to get a finger in the wind sense of what some of the more scientifically-inclined types around here thought.

I will say that I tend to think the opposite--that there was less of a remove in earlier times. The era of the amateur mathematician/scientist and all that. It seems like that's a really vanished phenomenon--productive amateurism in the sciences.

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

Definitely bigger than 2000 years ago. Probably 200 too.

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

In terms of sheer quantity of knowledge, the gap is quite obviously bigger now (and still expanding).

However, in terms of important concepts, the gap is narrower.

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

Well, let's see. The average person still believes in astrology and lucky red shirts, that leaves them quite comfortable in the 14th century. If science has progressed much since 1450 then I'd say the gap should be wider.

luckyme

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

Interesting question. I'd guess the gap is bigger now.

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's see. The average person still believes in astrology and lucky red shirts, that leaves them quite comfortable in the 14th century. If science has progressed much since 1450 then I'd say the gap should be wider.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

True dat

Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question
 

I can read your question two different ways.

The average person knows a tinier fraction of all human knowledge than ever before, because there is so much more information.

But if you're comparing how much the average person knows with how much the average scientist knows, the gap is tiny compared to what it once was. There is a huge gulf between illiteracy and success in high school algebra and chemistry - and then it's possible, if necessary, to explain most modern scientific things in terms the bright high school student can understand, even if he can't do his own research.

Private people doing their own research, incidentally, enjoyed another huge explosion as powerful home computers appeared... a lot of the results in, for instance, cellular automata, did not come out of PhDs. It has slowed a bit as a lot of the old research questions that required nothing but extra computing power to solve have been taken care of - and as computers have gotten complex enough that their full capabilities are a bit daunting to master.