Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-10-2007, 02:38 PM
arahant arahant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 991
Default Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question

I guess I read this a little differently because I distinguish between how important certain advances are. In the last 100 years, the major accomplishments have been QM, relativity, the standard model, and genetics (IMO). None of these seem to me really important for the general public to know. The knowledge about everyday, macro phenomena seems like a larger chunk of all scientific knowledge to me, and basically everyone knows that the earth revolves around the sun, gravity 'causes' things to fall, stars are really far away, and the earth is really old.

At the same time, the scientific community has grown larger as societies develop the economic productivity to support education and research classes. So while Boltzman had only a handful of peers, today he would have 100's...

meh...dunno. just some thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-10-2007, 02:51 PM
Rduke55 Rduke55 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,958
Default Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question

I'd guess that it's bigger. Maybe because of greater specialization in science? Along those lines there's almost certainly a bigger gap in knowledge between scientists of different disciplines.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:46 PM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Performing miracles.
Posts: 11,182
Default 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 ]

Wait. Are you claiming my lucky red shirt is not, in fact, lucky?

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:09 PM
samsonite2100 samsonite2100 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bustin\' Makes Me Feel Good
Posts: 1,092
Default Re: Simple, yet abstract and possibly dumb science question

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Wait. Are you claiming my lucky red shirt is not, in fact, lucky?

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, clearly you have a lucky red shirt. How else could you have accidently solved a sodokube?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.