Image: Kevin KellyScience, says Kevin Kelly, certainly is the procedure of changing the way you know things. It is very easily the foundation of our culture and society. While civilizations appear and vanish, science grows steadily onward. It will do this by watching itself.
Recursion may be the essence of science. One example is, science papers cite other science papers, realizing that way of research as pointing at itself and invoking an entirely better range, the emergent label of citation space. Recursion always does that. This is the engine of scientific progress and comes in proportion to the progress of society.
An exceedingly fruitful strategy would for checking out good science is perhaps to examine how science itself has changed in time, owning an eye for any of the trajectories which might build some connections with the future. Kelly chronicled a sequence for the latest recursive devices in science...
2000 BC — First text indexes200 BC — Cataloged library (at Alexandria)
1000 AD — Collaborative encyclopedia
1590 — Controlled experiment (Roger Bacon)
1600 — Laboratory
1609 — Telescopes and microscopes
1650 — Society of experts
1665 — Repeatability (Robert Boyle)
1665 — Scholarly journals
1675 — Peer review
1687 — Hypothesis/prediction (Isaac Newton)
1920 — Falsifiability (Karl Popper)
1926 — Randomized design (Ronald Fisher)
1937 — Controlled placebo
1946 — Computer simulation
1950 — Double blind experiment
1962 — Study of scientific method (Thomas Kuhn)
Projecting forward, Kelly had five ways to describe a century in science...
1) You can see there's often more change in the next half a century of science vs the last 400 years.
2) This century obviously became a century of biology. It is going to be the domain with an increase of scientists, the newest results, the foremost economic value, the foremost ethical importance, together with the best discoveries to share.
3) Computers keeps triggering new styles of science. Details are still growing by 66% anually while physical production grows by only 7% annually. The content volume is still growing to such quantities of "zillionics" which we could get science to compile vast combinatorial libraries, that you perform combinatorial sweeps through possibility space (as Stephen Wolfram does with cellular automata), and also run multiple competing hypotheses inside a matrix. Deep realtime simulations and hypothesis search will drive data collection in the real world.
4) New style of knowing will emerge. "Wikiscience" is creating perpetually refined papers along with a thousand authors. Distributed instrumentation and experiment, through minuscule transaction cost, will yield smart-mob, hive-mind science operating "fast, cheap, & uncontrollably." Negative results ought to have positive value (you will discover already a "Journal of Negative Makes for Biomedicine"). Triple-blind experiments will emerge through massive non-invasive statistical data collection--- not anyone, not the themes plus experimenters, will realize an experiment was going on until later. (Inside Q&A, one questioner predicted next created by zero-author paper, generated wholly by computers.)
5) Science can provide various new meanings. Websites already includes one quintillion transistors, a trillion links, several emails per second, 20 exabytes of memory. It's usually approaching what amount of our brain which may be doubling once a year, while your brain is not. This means that it's all becoming effectively one machine. And we all are typically the constituents of the machine.
"Science can be an approach we take to surprise God," said Kelly. "That's what we're for." Our moral obligation would be to generate possibilities, to uncover the infinite ways, however complex and high-dimension, use the infinite game. It usually takes all possible different varieties of intelligence in order that the universe discover itself. Science, performing it in this way, is holy. This is a divine trip.
1) You can see there's often more change in the next half a century of science vs the last 400 years.
2) This century obviously became a century of biology. It is going to be the domain with an increase of scientists, the newest results, the foremost economic value, the foremost ethical importance, together with the best discoveries to share.
3) Computers keeps triggering new styles of science. Details are still growing by 66% anually while physical production grows by only 7% annually. The content volume is still growing to such quantities of "zillionics" which we could get science to compile vast combinatorial libraries, that you perform combinatorial sweeps through possibility space (as Stephen Wolfram does with cellular automata), and also run multiple competing hypotheses inside a matrix. Deep realtime simulations and hypothesis search will drive data collection in the real world.
4) New style of knowing will emerge. "Wikiscience" is creating perpetually refined papers along with a thousand authors. Distributed instrumentation and experiment, through minuscule transaction cost, will yield smart-mob, hive-mind science operating "fast, cheap, & uncontrollably." Negative results ought to have positive value (you will discover already a "Journal of Negative Makes for Biomedicine"). Triple-blind experiments will emerge through massive non-invasive statistical data collection--- not anyone, not the themes plus experimenters, will realize an experiment was going on until later. (Inside Q&A, one questioner predicted next created by zero-author paper, generated wholly by computers.)
5) Science can provide various new meanings. Websites already includes one quintillion transistors, a trillion links, several emails per second, 20 exabytes of memory. It's usually approaching what amount of our brain which may be doubling once a year, while your brain is not. This means that it's all becoming effectively one machine. And we all are typically the constituents of the machine.
"Science can be an approach we take to surprise God," said Kelly. "That's what we're for." Our moral obligation would be to generate possibilities, to uncover the infinite ways, however complex and high-dimension, use the infinite game. It usually takes all possible different varieties of intelligence in order that the universe discover itself. Science, performing it in this way, is holy. This is a divine trip.
No Response to "Kevin Kelly's Speculations on The Future of Science"
Post a Comment