Is Science Dying?

Expand your scientific horizon with Brilliant! First 200 to use our link brilliant.org/sabine will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
Is science coming to an end? On the one hand, it seems like scientific progress has slowed to a crawl and no big breakthroughs are happening any more. On the other hand, we are left with many unsolved problems in science that I am pretty sure have a solution. In this video I explain why I think that we need to seriously consider the possibility that we live in the final phase of scientific discovery.
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
00:00 Intro
00:31 What does it mean that science might end?
03:23 Reasons why science might be ending
04:49 Reasons why science might not be ending
10:04 New Laws of Nature, Waiting To Be Discovered
11:53 So then why worry?
13:09 Why does it matter
13:45 Keep science alive with Brilliant.org!
#science

[@you-dont-know-me]

I am a researcher just after PhD, and I am very disappointed to see most academics just doing bad science to get quick publications. Noone wants to do hard and often fruitless, but properly and rigorously done research anymore because you'd spend years on single publication which apparently doesn't matter nowadays.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Unfortunately, I know exactly what you mean

[@hlmuench4212]

@@SabineHossenfelderyet as a whole, noone does.

[@simonwatson2399]

In the UK the REF rewards publication volume. League tables with irrelevant measures resulting in chasing targets, not valuable research.

[@iagobkstar]

It's so disheartening to see the same comments from everywhere I go and everyone I talk. Science cannot be quantified by ANY objective index, number of publications, h index, quartiles and so on. It's just plain wrong, and that's what's killing science. It's not the scientists' fault, but the funders and governments'

[@RemotelySkilled]

@@simonwatson2399 Yup and there is the root of all evil again: The hubris of the island folks. Especially certain colleges of the University of London (speaking out of experience).

[@musthaf9]

My professor is somewhat secretive with some of our projects because he is afraid that someone else’s from a better funded lab might steal his idea and then publish first. Imagine doing proper rigorous and time consuming research and finding out someone published it first, and then suddenly your works means nothing because no high impact journal is willing to publish second discovery. That constant fear that your work might some day became meaningless is what drove me away from academia

[@NormanCorebit]

That's selfish

[@MrDoboz]

@@NormanCorebit selfish?! don't you like to not starve?

[@NormanCorebit]

@@MrDoboz I love not starving, but I don't see the point in living if my interests die because I can't profit off of then. This person was a part of a research institution, and they left that work behind because they feared they wouldn't get the attention they believe they deserved, even though publications aren't the only way to make money from your research. If their competition reached publication first, then why not share what they do on one of the many social media platforms, with primary school classes, in a college/university lecture hall or at a community event? Why leave behind the sciences because you have an irrational fear that one failure will render you completely obsolete? If that the issue today? That many researchers fear obsoletion so they either cut corners or they bury their work? If that's the case, then it's no wonder society is regressing into pseudoscientific bullshit, petty politics, disgraceful role models, dimwitted graduates, uninspired media content, laziness, and more.

[@musthaf9]

@@NormanCorebit I meant he is secretive toward other institutions, such as not presenting findings from WIP projects in conference. Publication in high impact peer reviewed journal practically means everything in academia. How successful you are as a researcher, is mostly based on publication. anything else is usually not counted

[@Felipe_Ribeir0]

This is not a new thing, in math it was common to keep secret of certain discoveries as a way of getting prestige of being the only one able to solve certain problems. For example, see the history of the solution of cubic equations around ~1500, the name of the guy is Tartaglia. More recently a world wide famous mathematician tried to steal credit of the proof of the Conjecture of Poincare from Grigori Perelman. Andrew Wiles worked in secret for 7 years until presenting the Fermat Theorem proof. And all of this with math being a field known by having high ethic standards. So this is the game, the winner takes all.

[@rubixmann]

I’m reminded of this 2018 piece titled “Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists”, published as a “World View” article in Nature. It starts with an executive summary: “Many doctoral curricula aim to produce narrowly focused researchers rather than critical thinkers. That can and must change, says Gundula Bosch.” She states: “Under pressure to turn out productive lab members quickly, many PhD programmes … have shortened their courses, squeezing out opportunities for putting research into its wider context. Consequently, most PhD curricula are unlikely to nurture the big thinkers and creative problem-solvers that society needs.” In summary: we “need to put the philosophy back into the doctorate of philosophy: that is, the ‘Ph’ back into the PhD.”

[@MyName-tb9oz]

Do you really think that the corporations _want_ people capable of critical thinking? They want even their researchers to be unimaginative order-followers. If you think they want anything else you're kidding yourself. I spent a lot of years in the corporate world. Decades ago a partner in one of the companies I worked for specifically told me that most of the jobs in corporations existed solely to keep people busy. Their work produced no real benefit to society. This was decades ago and he was in a position to know.

[@briandriscoll1480]

If budding scientists haven't been taught to think critically (not to be confused with its opposite, 'critical theory') by the time they've acquired a basic bachelor's degree, it may already be too late.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

@@briandriscoll1480, I think that what you have said is far more true than the vast majority of people understand. There is a younger girl who lives next door to us. She may have poisoned a pack of raccoons and our cat. Intentionally. I honestly don't /want/ to believe she would do such a thing but... She actually said she would kill the cat. "Oh, cats are an invasive species and they are terrible for native birds!" What kind of a psychopath do you have to be to intentionally poison a cat that does no harm? But this is how she has been trained to think by the college she has attended. I can honestly say that I have noticed a difference in her behavior in the past year and it's disturbing.

[@briandriscoll1480]

@@MyName-tb9oz I wasn't really referencing what students are being taught today in colleges, worthy as a topic that may be, but rather what they are not being taught, which is to think critically, something which I don't believe comes naturally.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

@@briandriscoll1480 I think it's part of the same thing. They're not being trained to think _about_ things they're just being trained to believe things. You certainly have to have some basic facts to be able to think about things since it's the basis of communication but that is where you have to start being trained to figure things out and, yes, think critically and logically. Logic, reasoning, and critical thinking come easier for some than others and some few people really do seem to find it natural. They still need training to be good at it, though. I spent months lecturing my children on it. I think you might enjoy this quote: People used to think that learning to read evidenced human progress; they still celebrate the decline of illiteracy as a great victory; they condemn countries with a large proportion of illiterates; they think that reading is a road to freedom. All this is debatable, for the important thing is not to be able to read, but to understand what one reads, to reflect on and judge what one reads. Outside of that, reading has no meaning (and even destroys certain automatic qualities of memory and observation). But to talk about critical faculties and discernment is to talk about something far above primary education and to consider a very small minority. The vast majority of people, perhaps 90 percent, know how to read, but do not exercise their intelligence beyond this. They attribute authority and eminent value to the printed word, or, conversely, reject it altogether. As these people do not possess enough knowledge to reflect and discern, they believe-or disbelieve-in toto what they read. And as such people, moreover, will select the easiest, not the hardest, reading matter, they are precisely on the level at which the printed word can seize and convince them without opposition. They are perfectly adapted to propaganda. ― Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, 1965

[@lvlndco]

I'm concerned about the state of science. We are fed a lot of information that supposedly comes from scientists but after several months or years it appears they were pushing an agenda or were very biased. It is sad that science is getting diluted by people with agendas. I remain hopeful that the pendulum will swing back and scientists will be able to get back to actually doing science again. There are still good scientists out there today, and I am very thankful to them and hope they can push through this troubled era.

[@joebowers2249]

I tend to agree. Science for science sake is very interesting but a lot of it gets misused. It was very interesting for Rutherford to split the atom, but had he known the consequences he probably would have destroyed the research. Science really does need to slow down because it's coming up with stuff faster than our ability to cope with it. Elon Musk wants to colonise mars but will decimate earth in the process.

[@justanothermortal1373]

I feel this with climate science

[@cornstar1253]

​@@justanothermortal1373 climate sceance

[@Western_ENT]

@@justanothermortal1373 i strongly feel this with psychology/physiology, and heck they're not even "science" to begin with! The people doing these mind matter researhces are TELLING us what they WANT to be the laws of nature, not what the laws of nature REALLY ARE! How they're even accepted as science, when not proven by any mathematical formula or a 99% convergence on a huge data set, just blew my mind! That's when I knew I lost my respect for the Science community, especially in the US!

[@understandingyourself]

“Science” is being used to rule the people, technocracy.

[@manmanman2000]

I remember that there already was a time long ago where scientists thought that science has ended and that future scientific progress would only lie in discovering the 15th decimal of some constant. That was in the 19th century and shortly afterwards we discovered relativity and quantum mechanics. So, you'll never know what lies ahead.

[@Trompicavalas]

Forgive me for spoiling your optimism. But the big difference between that situation in the 19th century and the current one lies in the fact that then, they had answered all the questions, so they needed new questions to keep moving foward. While now we are unable to found the answers to questions that are 50, 75 or 100 years old

[@usaturnuranus]

At the same time, the effort, instrumentation technology, and absolute precision necessary to resolve the kind of questions that we seek to answer at our present level of scientific endeavors often demand astronomical investments and years of data analytics for verification. As in most every case, the ROI appears to be an uncertain or diminishing figure until such time as profound new discoveries are made, then the impetus is regained and the cycle begins anew. The more we want to learn about less and less, the more demanding and expensive the cost of admission it would seem.

[@bennytleilax]

Yes. At the end of the 19th century, the only thing left to do was to refine the constants. A few years later, they didn't know anything. Not only is the growth of knowledge non-linear, but there are discontinuities. The discontinuities are caused by breakthroughs in theory, not improved measruement ability.

[@usaturnuranus]

@@bennytleilax I rather think it is more like a blend of the two. Get both the theory and the measurements right and we all move forward.

[@eliahabib5111]

While this objection is correct the only difference is if science is nearly done with discovery or if it isn't. It doesn't change the fundamental question of is science finite. But maybe science is fractal with new fields of science arising from old one, like the relationship between fisics and chemistry.

[@richardharris8538]

"... my idea of a complex problem is saying no to a dinner invitation." I'm with you 100%, Sabine.

[@neildutoit5177]

She jokes... but this literally is a complex problem.

[@krzysztofkowalski2816]

@@neildutoit5177depends who you are with

[@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702]

I really like Sabine. She’s not afraid to talk straight about complex problems. One of the few that does. I like that! 😀

[@philbiker3]

she is awesome!

[@ahmetdogan5685]

Sabine could be the madam of coming Dystopia.

[@nyralee8172]

God! Seeing this video just brought life to my eyes. Im a 16 year old highschool student, and i was just pondering this question the other day while i studied protostars, that, all major discoveries in science, like the existence of neutrons snd wave-particle duality and developments of fields such as psychology and neuroscience have been done, so it really does feel like the world of scientific research had come to a seemingly endless standstill. And this sort of worried me as although I am very interested pursuing scientific research as a career (as opposed to being a therapist or cardiologist, both fields I considered but decided to leave because they didn't satisfy my desire to rake through the universe to know all that I can, or die trying) what if all that becomes of the career is begging behind grants and glossing over previously done research. But the bigger problem for me has been 'what kind of scientific research', because I'm studying several fileds of science at highschool level: Biology, Chemistry, Advanced Mathematics, Sociology, and Psychology, and surprisingly enough I see links between all of them that are so intricately designed and hence picking just one pure field to go into seems impossible. How can I just pick one when I want to comprehend how consciousness works and how we define reality and what the relation between our biochemical and biophysical and our social and political world is, I want to quantify social reality and counciousness. And personally, I believe, most of the answers to our current problems come from the advancement of science in this 'chaos and complexity' gap that you defined, and I'm so glad that I watched this video because although these ideas of working on studying 'biological systems, life, consciousness, society, and politics' in this particular frame has plagued me insanely, it's very difficult to translate them out loud, let alone for them to be taken seriously in a country where the appreciation for natural sciences and basics has just started to arise. And more to say, the most difficult part is choosing out majors/subjects to take as I get to higher education, because as far as I am aware, I haven't seen any university majors or the like that explore these ideas, save for the very segregated 'social sciences' and 'stem' majors. English is not my first language and so although I'm proficient (mostly) in writing and comprehension, I have severely lacked the scientific vocabulary required to research further into these ideas, (for example, chaos and complexity' theory) so thank you for providing them. I think I have a whole weekend of articles and lectures ahead of me now!!

[@jamesp9456]

Interesting perspective. I think this is part of the issue with stalled progression in many fields: we are past the age of the cross-discipline generalist because each field is now becoming quite deep. In my field of genetics & biotech I look at even 20-30 years ago when we had major breakthroughs at high level but now people can spend their entire careers in a tiny corner of biology and are never challenged to understand or contribute to bigger picture thinking. My feeling is that new breakthroughs will increasingly be cross-disciplinary (again) but the challenge is figuring out the best ways to allow those connections to be built.

[@SannaJankarin]

I really liked your perspective. As a fellow person who loves seeing how interconnected are fields such as biology, nutrition and psychology, same questions have arrived in my mind. The answer is that I am still uncertain and academia has proven to be severely disappointing. I also relate to your struggle about the cultural appreciation of science.

[@MedlifeCrisis]

It’s interesting to hear your perspective from physics, as I would also rebut Horgan’s claim from a biology point of view. I think the forthcoming century will see dramatic leaps in our understanding and manipulation of biology. Ones I don’t think civilisation is even ethically ready for. I found Horgan’s writing when I was quite young and he was very influential on my early views on science, but as I actually started doing science and went into full time research, I started to realise that he brings quite a significant bias to his views. Which is not at all to say that his criticisms of modern science *as it’s currently undertaken* are invalid (and also some of the things you touched on at the end), indeed I totally agree.

[@kostarak3160]

It's great to see you here.Nice videos.

[@adamcummings20]

Yeah, neuroscience in particular, wasn't there that massive discovery very recently of dozens of new types of cells in the brain stem?

[@kirsaakov8808]

I feel it too. I am very interested in biology and genetic research, gonna learn it, when I stop serving in a year. I actually did research with university while in school. Biology will undergo a large boom in progress in the near future.

[@kateapple1]

And data collection and nano technology will change the whole thing. I mean no one can afford health unless they’re wealthy rn and that’s only gonna get worse.

[@FemboyCatGaming]

Computing is revolutionizing biology. In our life time well see protein folding prediction programs with 95% + accuracy. Alpha fold 2 is already at 80%

[@MichaelEdelman1954]

I saw this trend 40 years ago, when I was in grad school. The head of a lab I worked in was a master at getting funding and having our papers published, but uninterested in advancing knowledge about how things actually worked. I knew a lot of researchers in a range of fields who were very successful at nibbling away at details, refining what were well-known and well understood processes. All a consequence of the modern University research model in which departments are rewarded for bringing in grant money.

[@AnttiTolamo]

I agree. In my opinion this the is result of making science a career. Its reason why they may not come big discoviers anymore is because people doing science are only working on universities and labs. They mainly need funding and acceptance of their colleagues to keep doing it. Both lead to gong toward conventional generally accepted theories and studies. Infact I'd argue that lot of big turning points in science are propaböy not much result of experimental observations, than just result of unconventional thinking: seeing the question and problem in new way. But if you have been taugh certain ways to think everything and you work in enviroment that tries to upkeep these generally held notions and your paycheck depends on it; you may not be interested go too far away to challenge ideas and really think out of the box.

[@anonymike8280]

It's all the fault of Aristotle. By making the epistemological hierarchy essentially social, he gave people a social means by which a defined station which could be gamed. The good is that narrow but useful studies thereby are encouraged through the granting of prestige and recognized membership in a class or guild. The bad is that people can acquire the outward appearance without the inward substance and therefore gain recognition for social reasons when they do not merit the station they are granted. And of course people who merit recognition may for the same social reasons, fail to receive recognition.

[@davidfrith6066]

Risk averse for financial security. Funding is the problem.

[@hillbilly4895]

So, what you're saying is that you're not smarter than that which you admonish...that about it? Aren't you a little old to be a crybaby?

[@cesardiezv]

If that was 40 years ago, now it is much worse. Also, the specialist in high publication number will usually manage to overpower pioneering discoveries by other researchers, as they have more fame, money, facilities, and people.

[@gfujigo]

A couple of thoughts: Science is just one way in which we as humans choose to investigate reality. Science is held back by scientism (ironically), naturalism, physicalism, and other ills. We need to understand there is more to reality than what scientific methods can discover. The problem is when we do encounter evidence that identity science’s limits, we just try to cajole it into a scientific or physicalist framework that just doesn’t work. Consciousness is a glaring example.

[@viniciusornelas2160]

This brought to my mind that quote attributed to Tesla: when science begins to investigate non physical phenomena, it will make more progress ina decade than ever before

[@alextaws6657]

I appreciate you SO SO much, Sabine!! Thank you for talking about these things - they are essential! Unfortunately, as @you-dont-know-me already pointed out, the skill (or willingness?...) of actual scientific thinking as opposed to just filling out forms which happen to be "scientific" articles is very rare. I notice this when reading literature - almost all "wow! ok, now this/that makes sense!" moments I've had so far come when reading papers from the 20-60ies on methods or content. Unfortunately, the reason why I have to go back to these sources is because I have to reconstruct why seemingly nonsensical procedures or interventions are practiced - and then I find that the intent/core of the original sound idea got lost and twisted over time into bullshit, pardon my french. (I work in psychology/social sciences.) And I am in a very luxurious and unique position that I don't have to publish, so I can take my time to understand something and think (and read) about it, so no shade thrown on colleagues! One other major reason for this is, I am quite sure, that there is a considerable fear of math/logic/... among the students and researchers in my field - which of course is catastrophic when you work with chaotic/complex systems and don't have even basic quantitative thinking skills (I only mention the NHST as - still - by far the most common statistical analysis method). So please, continue making videos like this one (or about the overemphasis of mathematical beauty in physics etc.), you are one of few contemporary scientists who enormously enrich my thinking! Again, thank you very, very much!

[@Xanoxis]

At relatively early stage I noticed this problem of complexity, and lack of honesty in society regarding it. People treat complex problems as something solvable, even though we have no idea how to even approach it, and at best, try to simplify things blindly, and hope it does something. But correlation doesn't mean causation, and all that. And it's everywhere, politics, economy, science, managing workforce, daily life or emotions. Nobody really wants to honestly say we have no idea how this works, that it is not perfect, and to together try to figure it out, with making some sacrifices. Nah, it's better to proclaim you know all the answers, sell your voodoo, and break shit.

[@gabrielbarrantes6946]

Actually all those things are solved... Complexity is not a big deal, is just a matter of computing power... And I really don't see how having closed exact solutions would help anything...

[@Xanoxis]

@@gabrielbarrantes6946 I do agree complexity can be solved with time, but it's not solved currently. To be more specific, I'm saying that 'pretending' to have solutions is the main issue. Our society and our current systems need to be tuned more around the idea of honesty about our shortcomings. Easiest example is the economy, and how companies aim at dishonest metrics of infinite growth for their shareholders. Currently, any company saying straight to the face of shareholders, that, no, we won't sacrifice stable growth without firing everyone, just to have a slightly higher market price, would be deemed crazy. Society needs to change that, lower expectations. In economy, politics, work, social life, all that. The issues all start with being overly confident with too complex topics. There's a lack of serious self-awareness of the process, and instead the blame is thrown on individuals that failed the roulette of complexity. If we all would agree, that nobody really knows what we're doing, and we're throwing darts in the dark at times, we could be more careful, purposeful, and empathetic to those that had failed 'the roulette'.

Emotions? really? That's just hormons and other chemical substances in your brain. You know we cave drugs that make you more alert, less depressive, less anxious, etc

[@kenhiett5266]

​@@gabrielbarrantes6946 If complexity is "not a big deal" then why are computer models still unable to make 100% accurate 1 hour weather predictions where I live, let alone days, weeks, or months out? When computational power/AI gets to the point of delivering all the necessary factors, then your argument will hold water, but we're nowhere near anything like that yet. Complexity is still a really big problem as an outside agent has to deliver the factors before setting the parameters.

[@moron0000]

​@@gabrielbarrantes6946 that's contradictory. You can't say "those things are solved" and inmediately say "it's a matter of computing power" because we don't have it yet, and that implies the problems are not solved to begin with. Even if we had the computing power, it's not clear that'd solve the problem of complexity either; tech has been advancing pretty fast on that front and we still don't seem to be even making steps in the right direction. Also can't help but laugh at the idea that you just said "we solved (...) politics and economics" among other things. I don't exactly need to have studied philosophy to disagree, though it helps.

[@TheBackyardChemist]

One of the worse ways science could end is if society stops seeing science as valuable or important.

[@noelwass4738]

I think this comment is very relevant.

[@danielh.9010]

Actually, I think many "normal" people are ignorant of science or have a rather negative view on it. The prejudice of scientists in their ivory tower is quite widespread. Often, the word "expert" is associated with someone who is ignorant of practical problems, or who is paid big money to tell lies. Only few people outside academia understand how science works, i.e. how scientific progress is made. Instead, they feel confirmed in their prejudices whenever they hear of conflicting statements, or whenever a scientist corrects his stance on a topic. However, I don't think this is indicating that science could soon come to the end, but rather that there is much room for cultural improvement.

[@andreilucasgoncalves1416]

People will always see science as important, the problem nowadays is some people use "science evidence" for everything to prove their arguments even knowing it is incorrect

[@vogue43]

As long as science is valuable for industry (competitiveness, ie profits) or governments (military uses) it will continue regardless of what the general public thinks of it.

[@jwrosenbury]

Truth is at the heart of science. Science seeks to differentiate the true from the false. And our society no longer values the truth.

[@seahog32]

The serious topic of the video aside, "my idea of a complex problem is saying no to a dinner invitation" is pure gold!

[@grantallard]

I'm a retired laboratory technician, but my exposure to and interest in all of the sciences since my teens has been broad and continuous. Is science dying? Great question, Sabine, and you delivered very well on the question; as usual. However, I have for some decades used a slightly different view of science when explaining what science is: Science is a toolbox that contains knowledge going back millenia, and its contents will always increase; and the tools are available to everybody. 'Doing science' is using these tools to answer questions, or to produce something. The first tool in the science toolbox is: Question everything.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

I think that the majority of the scientists (and I'm using that term pretty loosely) have not been trained to use the tools in that toolbox except in the most rudimentary ways. They have been trained in the rote repetition of the motions of the tools without any understanding of how to employ the tools in creative or novel ways of their own devising. They have, like most of the rest of our society, been trained what to think rather than how to think.

[@FuckingChrisKupina]

I second this as a normie who turned to his own research during lockdowns...

[@sabledawn]

When I worked as a strategic planner for IBM in 1990, they sent me to a class on technical and scientific strategic planning. There I learned that technological advances through the ages were marked by short-term sharp and rapid increases in capability, often prompted by some crisis, followed by very long periods of relatively little advancement. In 1990, the creators of the study suggested we had just entered such a short-term period (the information age), and within a few decades thereafter, the advances would slow down for decades. I don't think science is dead; I think it has begun a period of incremental advancement until the next crisis (war, climate) stimulates another rapid phase.

[@MrDarrenp40]

i.e. necessity is the mother of invention

[@nanorider426]

Yep. As a amateur historian I have read about similar persons who have said: "nothing new to discover/invent/figure out" through time.

[@JurijPopotnig]

You cannot predict the future based on history, too many variables that change every time. Also science nowadays is run by politics and oligarchs who want power and not the truth and in a globalised world with today's technology they pretty much can dictate where everything is heading. They started bullshitting people in physics, medicine, education and economics more than a century ago so most people with PHDs don't even know what they're talking about and show the behaviour of religious lunatics when questioned about their believes. All progress since then had the purpose to consolidate power while flooding the markets with unnecessary toys making people dumb and dumber and weak both physically and mentally. Of course there is a huge chance for a huge collapse of our civilisation but as you cannot predict the future based on history it's not clear what comes after. I think the people in power have the right science but they won't share why would they when people are happy with fancy toys. No one knows what's coming.

[@JurijPopotnig]

@@nanorider426 I think it goes this way: Contemporary scientists always believed they were smarter than the people before them. But in reality there is nothing new under the sun. Human progress is not linear nor is most we know from our history books the truth.

[@adamsmith275]

@@JurijPopotnig ...yeah!... Once you use the expression... THE TRUTH... you are done!... It will poison everything else that you say...

[@jameshart2622]

One of my physics teachers (higher-level undergrad physics class) paraphrased the complexity problem as "We've figured out to take the universe apart. We still don't really know how to put it back together, though." I hope we make progress on that front, though. It's fascinating.

[@t.c.2776]

I don't believe "science" even comprehends what the Universe actually is or does... like the Big Bang, much of what I see talked about is pure speculation... that's NOT science...

[@Four_Words_And_Much_More]

To do that required non-linear thinking and non-linear thinking tools. I know people that do that, but they are not scientists. The tool set is approximately SysML modeling language. Though extensions are essential in various domains to represent unique forms of knowledge in that domain.

[@MrWolynski]

Stellar metamorphosis is the theory designed to make 🌍

[@jan_kisan]

i think we will, after first rediscovering some old philosophy that dealt with just that.

[@iviewthetube]

Sort of where we are on the Star Trek Transporter.

[@ComsiCaterpillar]

Been in science for decades. Since say 2017 I've noticed a wave of "science believers" that believe in science as a religion. They're usually recent converts and motivated by the culture war, usually they grew up religious, got into New Age / astrology and then "converted" to "believing in science". These dogmatic trendies really annoy me. I don't "believe in science", I'm an atheist and a skeptic, science is a method not a set of beliefs. Science isn't "right", or else you'd know everything already and we could stop learning. Science embraces being wrong so it can learn more and derive a more accurate model and body of knowledge. These science "believers" disturb me

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

This observation of my fellow citizens while working on synthesis and characterization of a unimolecular half-adder was startling to me, in 2005. That was when I realized the insane uphill battle which thinking in terms of the natural laws and properties of matter was becoming. Pre-2005 was a wonderful time to be entering the scientific community and “lifestyle”. Today…there is not much support for it (I am discounting the trendy fanboy and fangirl curiosity since that type of support is most often like moths and flames).

[@johnbourassa1550]

I love this channel its so thought provoking and stimulating to hear a scientist take on the really tough questions even if the answer is just a singularity. IE, we don't know... Honesty in the answer is all that we are after in the end. So thank you!! :)

[@zornu]

I felt the pressure to publish in the 5 or so years after my Math PhD. Now I'm tired of churning out papers. Going to focus on some of the bigger problems, even if it means fewer publications. At a certain point I hope that all researchers will value their craft, over doing what's simply good for the job market.

[@neilreynolds3858]

Sorry, but once you have a modern wife, kids, dog, home insurance and mortgage payments, and car insurance and payments, you have to worry more about the job market than anything else unless you're good with seeing it all disappear.

[@markxxx21]

But it's like that with any job, you still have to have performance numbers regardless how tedious they are.

[@zornu]

@@neilreynolds3858 Academia is supposed to take care of job security and provide a comfortable living. At least that's the way it used to be.

[@georgedyson9754]

It is the case of investment and reward. 'Pure' research or fundamental research has very infrequent but potentially huge payback when it does. A simple example would be the development of solid state electronics perhaps. As a researcher in a business lab, budget always came along with what new products could be developed with which to make money - what business types referred to as Research, but what I refer to as 'Development'. The risks were much lower from a financial perspective but it was no going to find great t new underlying principles in most cases - quantum theory did not come out of a business lab! So for me it is how you finance work that CAN give rise to new basic co9ncepts and typically this is done by government investment through Universities. Yet this too has now become about justifying the research being done here with financial reward and thus the paper game started to try to justify the work being done in University labs. Somehow the work has to be quantified yet it is not always quality that can be produced in short time frames. So we have what we have. True some enlightened countries do club together to tackle fundamental work, such as the LHC in Cern, yet still many query the huge costs involved - especially when new discoveries may be made but others question whether the payback is happening. The world revolves around money before anything else!

[@brdrnda3805]

@@neilreynolds3858 I find this "modern wife" strange. What do you mean by modern wife and how would having a "not-modern wife" help?

[@user-ei9me2xt9d]

Many years ago I picked up a small book by Dirac, Directions in Physics, to read on an airplane trip. He suggested that in the early days of physics an average physicist could do great physics, while today (1980) it took a great physicist to do average physics.

[@koenstrobbe8101]

i studied micro-electronics in my first term in college, and civil engineering in a second term. That was from 1983-1990. I developed a interest in coding, starting with machine language (direct processor coding) to higher level coding as more and more tools developed. My end-dissertation was on the subject of memory-resident programming where you could swap out the entire context of the operating system with another context by hooking into the lowest level interrupts, memory management and so forth. Fastforward 40 years, and software is essentially still the same thing. The only thing that has changed is the complexity and inter-dependencies of blocks of code, simply because processing power has multiplied 1000-fold, but essentially, there's nothing really new about it from a groundbreaking point of view. I hate to break it to you all, but all the software on our smartphones, or any other devices, are essentially the same as 40 years ago. I sometimes find it quite disappointing, that throughout my carreer, people think it is new technology, it is not. I think we also need to have a socio-political-historical perspective on it. That is a philosophical slash humanistic perspective. Historically, it is inequality that allowed some to develop science, while others could not. The repercussions of that are still seen today. Almost all who developed new theories, made new discoveries came from a privileged part of the world. if Sabine was born in the Philippines, she would not have acquired the knowledge she has today. So in my mind, science and stuff is all good and well, but I think we should use our new insights to create a more equal world, otherwise, we're doomed.

[@stringX90]

The last few years have really showed me the hubris of our current sciencitfic community

[@deanmccrorie3461]

What religions have been trying to tell the ‘god is dead, science is god’ people for centuries

[@platinum-or3y]

@@deanmccrorie3461Wrong

[@georgeuferov1497]

​@@deanmccrorie3461 wdym?

[@KingMinos316]

Science, the process, is wonderful. Academics are the problem.

[@adamsmith7885]

​@@deanmccrorie3461Jesus is Lord ✝️

[@MarkRLeach]

Thank you. As a 65 year old chemist, I would say that 'complexity', or the recognition that complex systems are everywhere, is possibly the greatest advance in science during my career because of the change in context it brings. Most interesting to hear your views on this matter in 2023.

[@mtlmanmtlmann329]

As a chemist, do you know what water is and why the electrolysis demonstration produces very different gasses depending on the electrolyte, anode and cathode?

[@arturoquimico]

As a retired scientist... I appreciate your openness and honesty about science these days. Let's face it, science is a belief system based on empirical data analysis... the pursuit of science dies when it becomes purely speculative, political, or seeks power.

[@kateaye3506]

Agreed.

[@robertivey3758]

A belief system is the result of faith in something that cannot be proven or disproven by scientific or any other means. "I believe in Science" is an oxymoronic statement. I don't understand what you're trying to say. That Science is opinion or faith based? Neither is true. The scientific method follows the data--the external, emperical reality that neither knows or cares about our beliefs or politics--wherever it goes.

[@Rishi123456789]

Fake twitter science is dying and rightfully so. Real science is about the pursuit of knowledge simply for the sake of knowledge itself and will therefore never die. I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-scientism. I reject both "only my book has all the answers" religion AND "it's not real if we can't perceive it and replicate it in laboratories" science equally, for both are based on fundamentally false premises. The thing is this, you ask people "How do you know X?" and they'll probably reply by saying something like "Well, because it's in my science books." or "Well, because it's been peer-reviewed." or "Well, because it's been agreed upon by a majority of scientists.", but these are flimsy defences, because unless YOU can verify for yourself whether something is true or not either by OBSERVATION or by doing an experiment about it BY YOURSELF, you are relying essentially on external sources for your information and it is naïve to think that those sources don't have agendas. What the average person calls 'science' (which is actually just mainstream science) has been hijacked by politics, religion and corporations. So-called 'peer review' these days is usually nothing more than a circle-jerk. Just as people support the separation of church and state (and RIGHTFULLY so), I support the separation of SCIENCE and state. We owe it to our innate intelligence to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that includes EVERYTHING that I tell you! The 'science' that is telling you the covid vaccine is safe is the same 'science' that is telling you that men can be women. Remember that. If you politicise science, you destroy the spirit of science (which is to question things). Most so-called 'scientists' today don't know their ass from their elbow and just unquestioningly repeat what their textbooks tell them to repeat.

[@Martian74]

I definitely see science being abandoned, covid proved it for me, so many scientists, doctors and 'experts' were straight up lying for convenience. You MUST have 6 feet distance between people to stop the spread, 6' is the magic distance, trust the 'science'. You MUST wear a mask, even a homemade cloth mask that has zero standards and has never been tested is perfectly acceptable, trust the 'science'. Everyone getting the injection will stop the spread, ok, it doesn't do that, but you have to keep getting the jab anyway because of 'science'. Now we are out of the pandemic, and you can compare the results of different countries with the measures they took, the 'science' was whatever the countries leaders thought they could get away with. Once enough people had caught covid and realised it was only dangerous to the elderly, frail and overweight, they gave up caring about it so much and the 'science' sort of fizzled out on it, except all the 'scientific' people still thought that they were right, no matter the results. People don't even seem to care about getting the needle anymore, getting injections every 2 to 3 months just isn't going to work. You would think that scientific studies would be coming out on covid with definitive answers by now.

[@user-op1ve7by4b]

Dear Sabine, thank u for this insightful video. I do agree with what u said about the need of mathematical knowledge, which we don't really have at he moment (in order to tackle complex problems). But I believe we have to keep the door open to 'unsuspected possibilities' that may in turn lead to new breakthroughs. Who knows? Even though Hogan's argument seems to be a strong one, scientists ought to keep wondering about the universe and its mysteries in order to keep the dialogue going. And - who knows? - this academic/scientific dialogue may very well result in a new mathematical tool and thus to a some new piece of knowledge that may shed more light on what we already know or even to a scientific breakthrough. No one knows right now - and no one can be certain about - what scientists will come up with as aresult of their inquiry. And given that the issue of 'science', as both a noun and as a verb (i.e., doing science) is acomplicated one, one should also bear in mind what Richard Feynman, had said about it: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

[@igorvolkov6396]

"I think we're too dumb to organize scientific research so that scientists can efficiently work towards those solutions." Great respect to Sabine for that. The whole of the first half of this clip I contemplated how to formulate the idea, only to find it ready at 12:40. We can't arrange efficient work in other domains as well. Internet has opened unlimited opportunity for cooperation already long ago, but it is barely used. "We" Who - we? There is no collective consciousness.

[@SilviaHartmann]

You nailed it. The science of how human beings work is absent, and THAT is what is holding the rest of it back. And no, we're not too dumb at all. We're just using all the wrong software.

[@TheWeirdResearcher]

The “disappearing socks in the washing machine” really hits home.

[@FanGardinen]

actually we have some explanitions and approaches to that

[@glynnetolar4423]

Putting serial numbers on socks should be a good start for tracking. A half serious suggestion.

[@festeradams3972]

Washing machines are the only "Macro Object" that contain a Quantum field. Objects placed in this field, below a critical size limit, like "socks" then can exhibit "tunneling", in which a certain amount of socks will then appear in the "cavity" of a non-local washing machine....

[@daveaauk]

Can we all agree that the missing sock issue needs to be addressed first?

[@MrDiaxus]

​@@daveaaukyes

[@FAS1948]

When I worked in research, we had two distinct funding streams, one was looking for unknown solutions to known problems, and the other was directed towards finding the unknown unknowns.

[@johnalden948]

Interesting and "useful" comment. Let's see. Known known's are the body of science as opposed to science as the ongoing process.

[@ronaldglider]

must have been long, long ago... In the EU, the projects that get funded are going to those organizations that lobbied before the RFPs are written, and the proposed solutions are already known.

[@ThomasRSA]

I found the death of science in the food and diet studies. Finding results that are biological impossible. I don't know why we have to discuss or study something that is impossible.

[@NoobsDeSroobs]

The main issue, I feel, is the publish-or-die mentality that has come about from for-profit journals, and funding based on discoveries. The pursuit of knowledge has become secondary to the pursuit of money, sadly. Not because of the greed of the researchers, necessarily, but as a bi-effect of the previously mentioned issues.

[@TheMrCougarful]

IMO, this may well be the most important episode Sabine and the crew have ever produced. Well done.

[@AdrianBoyko]

Important in what way?

[@andrewfarrar741]

​@@AdrianBoyko"Alexa, ▶️ play Yosemite by @InIko and let My 🧠 Quantum™️ sort the rest."

[@andrewfarrar741]

​@@mcs699That's it? 🙄🥱

[@milferdjones2573]

Considering historically this not even close to the first time someone has declared science dead it's trivial at best.

[@richardhull2949]

I find it refreshing that like me, Sabine thinks deeply, perhaps unlike many reading this one of a kind missive on her part. That she is good and serious heretofore, I do feel this is one of here best ever presentations to us who are willing to think deeply.@@milferdjones2573

[@slide6strings]

Let's not confuse old "big discoveries" with "low hanging fruit". Love your tie-in between complexity and organizational behavior was great!! That is the secret sauce

[@2drealms196]

A good portion of old big discoveries were "low hanging fruit". Eg In the early 1970s designing a cutting edge chip required a team of a few dozen engineers. Now days designing a cutting edge chip requires tens of thousands of researchers and engineers from multiple corporations all working in collaboration.

[@andrewfarrar741]

​@@2drealms196Which era though?

[@leevester6924]

To hell with chips. Antigravity and/or vacuum energy! Guess we must look to the proles in their garages or basements.

[@yyyy-uv3po]

As an engineer I'm well placed to know that the last 20% of any project take 80% of the time. In some parts of Science we might be in this slow grinding progress, but some domains are still in their booming phase.

[@Lucien86]

​@@2drealms196 As someone who (as an amateur) has done research at the edge of physics (FTL interactions) I would say a lot of those old big discoveries are still pretty much low hanging fruit. A central point is the area where relativity and quantum mechanics meet - either one or both must fail. My bet is that relativity at least is going to fail & probably within Special Relativity.. As well as relativity being extremely accurate as mechanics at STL speeds there are a number of problems and predictions that are far more tenuous and dubious. (From the perspective of the FTL) The relativity of simultaneity, a folded space/universe, and a universal time dimension. Perhaps most extreme is that a time dimension is incompatible with the probabilistic part of quantum mechanics and basically locks us to a clockwork universe. On the opposite side quantum mechanics would lock a time dimension out of being traversable - pretty much the primary feature of what a dimension is.

[@alananer7970]

Excellent presentation, clear and well organized. If I remember correctly, Lord Kelvin said in 1899 that we have reached the limits in physics knowledge and there is nothing new to discover. It was 5 years before Einstein"s Annus Mirabilis!!

[@christopherb8017]

Hi Sabine! Biochemist turned bioinformatician here and I think I might not understand something here. Why do we need to have a fully elegant solution to some of these problems? From the biological-complexity perspective, it seems that these properties do arise from sets of interactions between matter than can, to some degree, be modelled mathematically at the small scale and for understanding and predicting the more emergent effects it seems that the trend nowadays is indeed to bring the hammer down with neural networks which node-by-node aren't too complicated in terms of the math. I know it's not beautiful or elegant but, like, why do we need to know from first principles how a protein folds? Anyhow if you already have a video on this I apologise!

[@constantine9512]

Whenever this topic comes up, I'm always reminded of when Lord Kelvin declared that there were only two clouds left to discover in science, and that the rest would just be stamp collecting. Those two clouds turned out to be Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and needless to say, there's still more than stamp collecting to be done.

[@HansLemurson]

Also the realization that Mathematics is actually an infinitely deep rabbit-hole, and not a finite rational system that can be completed.

[@ikemeitz5287]

@@HansLemurson Is that a provable claim? It's a VERY DEEP rabbit hole for sure, but "infinite" and "irrational" are very strong claims.

[@petermariner6323]

Learning about Chaos and Complexity changed everything for me. I had so many moments where I just shouted out "YES!" after reading something, it was almost like the sorts of religious revelations the devout claim to have experienced. The implications of what Edward Lorenz discovered remain profound, and his claim that long-term weather forecasting is doomed stands. Despite all the modern computing power available to us, we have managed to extend forecasts by about 2 days.

[@shepberryhill4912]

Why do you dismiss out of hand the experiences of those you don't understand? You may not consider 'religious revelation' the result of a rational process, and you may or may not be correct in that consideration, but you do not have the right to claim that 'nothing happened' when someone else has an experience. If new concepts can deliver what you consider an equivalent experience, then you must allow for the potential validity of new concepts you don't understand or see evidence for in others having an equally significant experience.

[@artstrology]

Because nobody studies the flavors of time. Weather forecasting has correlations with systems that could improve the length of forecasts. Even using a basic simple calendar, predicting this year would be hotter than normal, was rather basic. More needs to be explored in time.

[@FuckingChrisKupina]

11:53 I am pretty sure we DO have the maths, actually. I have been delving into audio engineering recently, and learning waveform application brought me somewhat of a different perspective, aligned with Tesla's motto. There is a four-part formula in music production for building tension. It somewhat resembles the plot outline of a story and the seasons of the year. This outline might be able to quantify some of the things you mention here. Rules of thumb: there is always an initial incident, there is always a climax, and there is always a massive drop in "Energy" somewhere down the line, restarting the cycle. If you think of everything in terms of frequency and vibration, then tension is an extremely important key word.

[@lellyparker]

The problem with Complexity is that it is a bit like cryptography. It is infinitely harder to figure out how it got to be than it is to make it so. It's like nature chaotically encrypted itself to stop us discovering too much.

[@PeloquinDavid]

Lovely analogy...

[@timhaldane7588]

Like trying to reverse-engineer the mathematics of a fractal.

[@alexbillingham3536]

it does kind of sound like she’s assuming that there is a proof that P = NP

[@andrewfarrar741]

@@alexbillingham3536 I'm pretty sure there is some maniacal program terrorizing innocent people online. Like a wannabe ✌️ bit boogeyman or boogeywoman. We can steer the miracle machine to function for good. #ProjectZero

[@Danielle_1234]

@@alexbillingham3536 That was my thinking too. Is there a difference between a general understanding of complexity and P = NP? I wish she dove a bit deeper to verify my understanding. I don't understand why people assume P ≠ NP isn't correct. Couldn't P vs NP be proven by brute forcing every mathematical operation showing it's not possible? But I'm not a logistician so I don't claim to understand the boundaries of what constitutes proof.

[@divadyrdnal]

My favorite saying “the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know”…

[@timhaldane7588]

The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of ignorance.

[@sunbeam9222]

As we learn more, we often uncover additional layers of complexity and unanswered questions, much like how increasing entropy in a system reveals more states or configurations that could exist, expanding the realm of what is possible or unknown. The process of gaining knowledge also expands the boundary of our ignorance ;)

[@viniciusvbf22]

Amazing video, Sabine! Thank you! Just a small nitpick: there's no "chicken and egg problem" (12:58). The egg came first, period. This is a science channel, afterall. 😊

[@viniciusvbf22]

🤣🤣🤣

[@BenTheSkipper]

I love hearing existential thoughts from Sabine

[@dougmorgan6616]

I've always felt that my weakness in math was mostly a lack of proper training. Your presentation has inspired me to correct that.

[@devalapar7878]

Yes and it starts at the childhood. When people don't learn math properly as children, they struggle as teenagers and adults in math. The problem with math is that everything builds onto each other. So if you miss one thing, you are screwed.

[@devalapar7878]

@@ivornelsson2238 I think you are wrong. I don't know what you mean with confusing.

[@mikespangler98]

It's not just training, it's the ability to abstract. I did fine on math up to differential equations. Then I hit the wall. I never really understood eigenvalues and eigenvectors from linear algebra either.

[@BlastedKat]

So interesting how the human mind works. My weakness is spelling. It is so bad I've had to carry around a small dictionary my entire life for simple words. I can write a word a hundred times, wait five minutes and can't spell it. But yet math is a breeze, in middle school I was singled out for having a gift. I was sent to many institutions for testing and study. It was a blast. Kinda like a smart dummy.

[@benbrook469]

@@BlastedKat what do you do now?

[@LeoArrudaProfile]

I suppose there is a ladder of low hanging fruits of scientific knowledge, and it gets harder, more expensive and possibly more complex at each step you climb. AI is probably getting a lot far ahead before getting really hard again, but It will probably get us to a place where things are no longer human understandable.

[@corkygoss7403]

Not true at the MFMP channel on YT. Best wishes.

[@sirdiealot53]

Yep I believe AI is gonna be the tool that propels us forward in all kinds of disciplines.

[@Alan-zf2tt]

Agreed - I suppose the next question is: why is it so? My take is that quite a bit of research seems to be tied up with commerce these days. There is a view to research being a branch of "even more intelligent product development". And by that I mean also for products that do not exist now and there is no need for their existence until, say, someone discovered a way to make blue LEDs doable. And then ... I suppose we cannot blame the funding streams be they state, corporate or individuals. But perhaps that has been cradle science has endured, needed to endure, will endure for centuries more? Agreed about math. Just another algebra?

[@kellycassutt3165]

After following Sabine for a few episodes, I recalled the 1984 movie "Amadeus". In the movie I watched Salieri amazed and enchanted by Mozart's genius. Salieri recognized, but could never create the same musical wonders. Salieri was driven to rage with jealousy. In my case, the fact that I can appreciate wisps, here and there, of Sabine's lessons and comments fills me with supreme satisfaction! Thank you, Sabine!

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, Sabine is the Salieri of science, for sure. She has never achieved any lasting recognition in it. Her work is just not very interesting. ;-)

[@neovxr]

There was a publication named like "Manoa Journal of half-baked ideas" from the institute of James Dator. One article tried to slice up the growth of complexity into 4 repeating steps of entities, aggregation, communication of aggregates, explosion of complexity (at each level or roundtrip), and then a singularity happens, and the resulting chaos is filtering out the next structure that works, from a gazillion attempts. They had many examples, like individual, family, community, tribe, village, city, nation, super power.... each depends on some form of creative invention when the next lower level was not sufficient any more.

[@curtisblake261]

I had an inkling that "math or it didn't happen" has been distorting our perception of reality and science. Well articulated. Thank you. Reminds me of an old joke with the upshot, this isn't where I dropped the coin, but I'm looking for it here because the light is better.

[@almightysapling]

Distorting, sure, there are definitely people who take the maths too literally. But without math... How do we model? Sure, something is happening, but we need the math in order to describe it and make predictions about it

[@usaturnuranus]

"Math or it didn't happen" seems to be the one and only methodology that truly matters when it comes to the successful modeling and resulting predictive capabilities that we might hope to gain from experimental pursuits, no? I mean, feelings are great and all, but...

[@curtisblake261]

Math and mathematical modeling are the cornerstone of all modern science, for sure. I was just trying to concur with Hossenfelder that adherence to our conventional models might be hiding better outcomes.

[@usaturnuranus]

@@curtisblake261 Point taken. I didn't intend for my comment to come across as an insult towards you personally, I only meant to say that without an adherence to mathematical rigor we are at great risk of erroneous outcomes in our analytical and predictive capabilities - and considering the widespread employment of computer modeling today (as opposed to actual physical testing) in designing aircraft, buildings (San Francisco's Millennium Tower comes to mind), the recent Titan submarine fiasco, etc I feel like it's imperative that the scientific community err on the side of accuracy and caution.

[@grokitall]

​@@usaturnuranusthe titan submarine disaster has nothing to do with not knowing the science, bit has everything to do with not bothering to hire any experts in the subject, followed by firing anyone who raised any concerns. Man rated tech has a higher personal integrity requirement than other stuff.

[@TomMarello]

Sabine, have you thought about making a video or two about how scientific publishing works (now)? The topics like: is peer-review still a valid 'control valve' in this massive hyperproduction of journal articles, the crazy APC charges for open access, how much profit is gained by publishers who own highly-indexed journals (especially the 'big 5'), etc. and does it, according to your reasoning, make science better or not.

[@Lenz2371]

From a psychological perspective I dont know if finding all the answers is good. We have answered so many questions that there is a Lack of discovery and so we stop trying or we rid ourselves of making the mistakes we need to make to understand the whole Problem. Or we create narratives that get taken out of context and people think they know what theyre talking about but really dont, because the Internet and "science" said so. And stuff like spirituality in its core is hard to grasp by science. Im done rambling :D

[@adrianwright8685]

When your video is preceded by an advert for a heater which uses, "virtually no electricity" and "heats your home for free" then I would agree it appears that Science is coming to an end!!

[@arctic_haze]

I had a conversation once about the climate models with an astronomer. He said something like "How can you use models of circulation when you did not solve the Navier-Stokes equation". I thought for a moment and answered "Even if we solved them, the circulation models would not change". And this is actually true. Because of the limitations of computational power, we would still be calculating differences between grid nodes as an approximation to the actual differential equations.

[@danjoseph5707]

Use your models to actually predict something... Oh wait, you can't.

[@arctic_haze]

@@danjoseph5707 Where does this nonsense come from?

[@danjoseph5707]

@@arctic_haze What will be the temperature in your city in 10 years?

[@arctic_haze]

@@danjoseph5707 We do not need circulation models to estimate that. The temperature trend where I live is about 0.4 K per decade (about twice the global trend). By the way circulation models are very useful in predicting weather in the time scale under two weeks. Predicting climate (the average of weather) is actually much simpler. You need only the projected CO2 content, value of climate sensitivity (we have it from multiple lines of evidence) and the ratio of local to global trends (so called "amplification" which we estimate from historical data). We do not need models for the last two as both come from historical data series. The main problem is how much CO2 we will emit but that should not change much in 10 years. PS. So the answer to your question should be: It will be different on different days but on average about 0.4 K warmer then in the most recent decade. And do not ask me what K is. Do your own research.

[@edsnotgod]

​@arctic_haze it's the co2 the co2 I tell you If we can apply some more carbon offsets to stave off the co2 a little longer we will build computers who will of course conclude "it's all the co2s fault"

[@geekexmachina]

As a chemist, I think it can be easily looked over that there are many more discoveries to be made, its suprising how many new material s can come out with unique and interesting properties. I have often found frustration in the lack of funding to create and develop materials without a client in mind.

[@estycki]

I’m not a scientist, but rather I loved learning, the text books, the diagrams, the videos we watched, etc so I wanted to study graphic design so I could create educational material. I ended up getting pushed into advertising instead, because that’s where most of the work is… I’m similarly sad that my profession is all about “how can we sell this?” And just recently I’m trying to see if I can pivot back to what my original intention was.

[@Uncanny_Mountain]

I think it's not so much about innovation, which is where science meets the road, but fundamental principles of science, that despite having a wealth of answers, those answers don't really address the core questions that were asked

[@zpettigrew]

Agreed! Chem is still a thriving field. Biochemist here.

[@Fistbeardthepirate]

13:35 Reminded me of the French philosopher Jacques Ellul who wrote something along the lines of: 'technology (as a whole) tends to create as many problems as it solves'. A good example might be smartphones which are an amazing piece of technology for communication, but are also quite problematic for younger generations who now face addictive social media algorithms, and misinformation and propaganda which is easily pushed on them etc.

[@dadananda]

Great video! Probably the best ever - and most important - by Sabine. Research in science is a complex activity and we don't understand enough about complexity to organise it - so we are not making progress in science. There is another interpretation, championed by physicists like Alexander Unzicker, that actually the reason we are not making progress in science is that we are not allowing science to be chaotic or complex enough. In the great age of scientific discovery, scientists basically earned their living by teaching and could otherwise be free-wheeling thinkers who published all sorts of speculative papers pushing the boundaries of what was known. Today, it is publish or perish and if you try to publish something outside of your own specialist subject, it is very difficult to get you ideas accepted.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Discovering non-linear dynamics in my Junior-year Classical Mechanics course put the "WOW!" back into Physics for me. Thanks, Peter Scott!

[@heybillpack]

Top loading laundry machines tend to have a small gap near the top, so if you over-load your washer (or sometimes even if you don't), occasionally a random sock will find it's way into the narrow crack and behind the drum that holds the water. If enough work their way into this space they can fall into the motor/belts and stop the washer or make it run worse. Repair techs will often find a lot of single socks in the insides of washers. .

[@timhaldane7588]

Shhh. Don't shatter my illusions about sock gremlins. 😉

[@wxfman]

You absolutely make my day every time, proper or otherwise. And a universe size thanks for that. As you teach we maybe are past many scientific breakthroughs but there are still refinements and bridges. For example, in my humble opinion, the “incompatibility between GR and QT” can be bridged by the Gödel solution to the Einstein Field Equations. This EFE solution exists within atoms, where spacetime is comprised of a frequency-time and non-Euclidean geometry. The atom boundary is then just a well-defined spacetime curvature separating two spacetimes, which provides acceleration fields and all of the other atomic properties known. Thus an atom is nothing more than a vibrating sphere of spacetime with harmonics that are mathematically identical to the currently used Bohr electron structure, only without the electron orbitals, just pure and simple harmonics of spacetime curved boundaries. Gravity, a geometrical manifestation of spacetime, produces a real physical acceleration, in the same way as curved spacetime at atom boundaries is responsible for producing real physical acceleration fields, called bonds, electro negativity, magnetism, and more. One can go further to show that curved spacetime produces mass and inertial resistance to acceleration. Thus everything and more is made from curved spacetime geometry. All this from the big Einstein and Godel breakthroughs

[@rogerbiros2394]

Sabine, love the videos. You are brilliant!

[@JohnnyKidder]

3:10 I appreciate Sabine's editor restraint into not also putting "spare brains in backpacks" into Midjourney

[@realLsf]

How do you know that you’re not a brain in a backpack being fed the illusion that you’re carrying one? 🧠🧳

[@napotronix]

Haha, I was thinking exactly the same

[@Atmatan_Kabbaher]

If you got an output from that prompt at all, it wouldn't be even remotely as gruesome as you're imagining it would be.

[@FLScrabbler]

​@@Atmatan_KabbaherI have just tried it with "Stable Diffusion XL" and in that case you are right... 😅

[@br3nto]

It’s really nice to hear so succinctly the limits of our current mathematical abilities. I now understand that some of the mathematical models we have are simply best fit for certain range of parameters. For example, the Cauchy equations and thin film equivalents to model light through thin-films. The maths works only when the input parameters are with a certain range, the equations don’t fit the real world outside of certain parameter bounds. The maths just isn’t sufficient to correctly model the real world, but is good enough for certain cases.

[@mtlmanmtlmann329]

with regards the double slit experiment, how as it confirmed that only a single photon hit the plate?

[@andreww.8262]

Hence why driverless vehicles won't be a thing for a long time.

[@markoates9057]

True. I believe this is the case for just about everything. The idea that a "unifying theory" would represent something truly fundamental and all things can be derived from it is (I think) fruitless. What you would end up with is just some kind of model of how we model things, a recursion. Quantum theory works for one range of parameters, gravitational field theory works for another range of parameters. Different mathematical models and theories are reductions that are nothing more than little "incomplete shortcuts" for the small domains in which they observe. Steven Wolfram has developed an interesting perspective on this, where he talks about how "pockets of reducibility" are necessarily inherent in the entirety of all possible computational space, and we as humans can kind of cling on to them. Our failure is that we believe these little "reduced pockets" that we've found are actually some kind of deep fundamental truth, and we can use them to build up that final answer in the sky.

[@br3nto]

@@mtlmanmtlmann329 I don’t know. But there is a great KZbin channel called Huygens Optics that investigates that sort of thing. Go check it out.

[@br3nto]

@@markoates9057 I like Wolframs approach to investigating and developing a framework that is founded on different principles. I think it’s called the Wolfram Physics Project. Being a software engineer, I resonate with that line of thinking. Right now, the universe just seems like turtles all the way down. The latest visualisations of how quarks and virtual particles supposedly interact just makes it seem like there is yet another level yet to be unraveled. I think there are a lot of untested assumptions that are taken as truth and infinitely applicable. And that’s problematic. I’m no physicist, but if I was, I would be very careful to understand the limits of the assumptions I’m working with, and very clearly communicate those assumptions and limitations often.

[@LeaCy-fm1wm]

Thanks for these insights. It really puts science in perspective

[@user-bo8rf5qz5j]

2 other aspect impacting scientific knowledge expansion, both with similar effects of clamping down on knowledge, interfering with the interplay of the scientific community: 1) science has become business, with monetization artificially pushing favored person and ideas, and limiting open critical thought & expression needed for growth (think of the failure of NASA), and 2) science has developed its own 'morality' or artificial lack thereof: certain accepted modern ideals cannot be questioned, crushing true growth in knowledge (the COVID epidemic is a prime example, among very many) these are things scientists are doing to themselves. when we get past these, there is great room for scientific growth

[@swordmonkey6635]

Edward Lorenz, who "discovered" the Butterfly Effect, or more accurately, the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, was a meteorologist researching climate forecast models on a primitive computer when he realized the space in between the measuring points would always be unknown, whatever the scale. It's cool you placed Chaos/Complexity Theory and Climate Modeling next to each other since they are so related.

[@jameshart2622]

Weather simulation is one of the classic examples of chaos, for good reason.

[@ravenmad9225]

Chaos is a measurement problem.We have no way of gathering all the information needed.There is just no way to measure all the variables and their effects accurately enough to predict the outcome.Therefore to us,it looks like chaos.

[@jameshart2622]

It's not just a measurement problem. As Sabina mentioned in her discussion of the butterfly effect, even if you have countably infinite measurements, you still hit a wall you can't pass. Of course, the reality of that effect is dependent on how good the model is, but it leaves the window open to having quantum effects step in when classical mechanics fails, and making it truly unpredictable. Which is wild, but the math checks out.

[@swordmonkey6635]

@@jameshart2622 The way Edward Lorenz explained it in his book, you placed sensors on every square mile of the atmosphere, but still have a gap of information away from the sensors, so you go down to 1/2 mile, but still have a gap of information. Go down to 1/4 mile and still have gaps and so on down and down. Those gaps represent places past the decimal place when it comes to accuracy (the sensitive dependence on initial conditions). You can't "round off" and expect long term forecasts to be accurate. The longer the duration, the more inaccurate the model becomes do to the sensitivity to initial conditions. He rightfully concluded, that long term weather forecasting (in years like the believed was possible in the early 60s) was impossible because of the complexity of the atmosphere.

[@Shazam999]

@@swordmonkey6635It is the information shadow. The only perfect model is reality itself. Everything else is a compromise.

[@utzuckz]

i'm heartened by Sabine's discussion of the significance of chaos and complexity, and her explanation as to why it hasn't blossomed (yet) in the way that some expected it to

[@oneshoepilot3943]

The body of knowledge humanity has acquired is insignificant compared to what we don’t know, and we don’t live long enough in good health to change that.

[@mcpkone]

The science about how to use scientific discoveries wisely has only just begun. That is where theories as the Theory of Holistic Perspective become important.

[@StephenRadmacher]

Sabine, you nailed it! You said everything that I have been thinking and lacked the talent to express! I will share this with everyone❤

[@diggie9598]

Talent won't get you any skills. Forget about talent.

[@MrGooglevideoviewer]

Sabine, you are an absolute gem and a pleasure to listen to. Thank you for all the effort you place into your videos. It is most appreciated. Best regards from Australia!

[@AnyVideo999]

Being optimistic about understanding complexity reminds me of being optimistic that P=NP. In this case, I'd more likely side with P != NP and some systems are perhaps too complex when enough independent parts are added. We already know of cases from math that sometimes the answer really is undecidable.

[@Warp9pnt9]

I KNEW you'd mention socks disappearing in the washing machine. I was thinking it at mere milliseconds before you mentioned it.

[@peterg76yt]

Just the other day I was thinking how much the "crisis in cosmology" sounded just like the ultraviolet catastrophe 130 years ago.

[@ahahaha3505]

Well both hint at opportunities to be sure.

[@franzculetto5962]

Well, the ultraviolet catastrophe is still there in the UV incompleteness of the QFTs, and the crisis in cosmology worsening day by day, maybe getting fatal in case of (our) universe found to never been that small where GR and QFTs would have been unable to live in parallel...

[@t00nfish]

Hi Sabine, as a regular watcher of your videos, I stopped this one right after 00:01:35 because I just learned that we had an astonishing break through in brain research focussing on brain cells. This was so amazing that I feel you can line it up with your examples in the video. Still enough there to call "break through" and changing everything.

[@_bhargav229]

Sabine could be right that this is a problem worth worrying about, but I think people in general underestimate the granularity to which we actually understand nature (because the unknowns are highlighted more often) and how short a 40 year period is to make any judgements about whether we've flatlined or if we're just in a minor blip of an upward trajectory of discovery.

[@Zeuskabob1]

Your final point on our seeming incapability in developing science further using our current techniques is a chilling one. The fact that a leading scientist can't imagine a feasible way for us to proceed in understanding some of the most important challenges of our world is indicative that it may be impossible for science to develop substantially from here on. That said, just because we can't conceive of a way that we could tackle these problems doesn't mean we won't eventually. Our "guess and check" or "shot in the dark" methods for making discoveries may be slow and inefficient, but progress may still be possible. Perhaps even by doing so we could find a method that's able to solve (or simply help with) a vast variety of problems. Perhaps the techniques being developed for machine learning are them? To deny that we'll make any substantial discoveries in the future is to admit your own hubris. The depth of understanding we have of the natural laws is probably not going to be extended. We will never rediscover relativity or the quantized nature of particles. To say that these discoveries are the capstone on science, the last significant discoveries ever to be made, displays superlative arrogance. Perhaps that's why Horgan's book is polarizing.

[@mcwolfbeast]

I'm sorry but there still plenty of massive discoveries, it just currently happens to be in areas that aren't as all-encompassing questions as the ones pointed out. Just look at the material sciences that is making genuinely new discoveries. Science will continue to live, just not in "traditional" areas of research.

[@Thomas-gk42]

I hope so.

[@shwetasinghnm]

I absolutely love John Horgan's writing style and ideas. His journal cross check is a treat to read, I eagerly wait for every post. His book was a game changer for me and I followed up on such ideas and other authors with similar views. I heard Sabine had inspired him to study quantum mechanics last year.

[@Nah_I_Would_Plummet]

his book isn't a good analysis of science and he also tries to push other woo like in his other book rational mysticism. I encourage you to look up some reviews of those books. These people are trying to k science with vague notions of ambiguity and uncertainty.

[@johnPaul-qn3dg]

It gets worse, I read in a David Graeber book that the last real invention that wasn't a composite of existing technologies was the LASER in 1960, I still think about that and apart from new materials, he seems to be right.

[@richardmcbroom102]

"Uh oh" is the term exclaimed in every horror movie that begins with the general population ignoring the warning of a scientist.

[@michaelraine8111]

I think there's different kinds of science: some is dying, some is stagnant (therefore probably dying), some is waiting for discovery and understanding, and some is thriving. Unfortunately, money is being thrown at the dead and dying. Thanks Sabine, you're a wonderful teacher and I am NOT a person in the sciences!

[@johnstjohn4705]

We humans have gotten as we have by asking questions and figuring out answers. It's our survival skill, and we have no choice but to continue. If we don't, we become a failed experiment. As a retired architect, I was in the supporting cast. We depend on people like you Sabine to do the heavy lifting, and I thank you for that.

[@robfut9954]

Unfortunately “asking questions” is discouraged more than in a long time in society today.

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

You are not allowed to question ‘The’ science.

[@OliverBatchelor]

Engineering, computing and technology has improved massively (and continues to do so) over 40 years though, some of these big breakthroughs that people desire may only be possible through having better tools to do the job.

[@SMathai]

"This raises the question" - YES,, properly used phrasing instead of "begs the question". I'm of the opinion that most opinions that start with "the end of " are nearly always found to be absolutely the farthest from reality with the passage of time. The "end of science" has happened many times before. However, as you say, the only way to ultimately keep an idea alive is to keep practicing it and same goes for science. "Everything that can be invented has been invented" - Charles H. Duell 1899 Philipp von Jolly supposedely telling Max Planck not to get into theoretical physics as there would be nothing to discover Albert A. Mickelson - 1894: it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established" Lord Kelvin did NOT claim the end of physics, but he didn't make very good predictions on a few topics either.

[@nicholasc6876]

This video makes me think about the LHC, the massive investments to find the higgs. We were able to do so (yay!), but the machine hasn't really broken our view of physics like many hoped. If our discovery process relies on the building of more and more expensive machines to detect more elusive particles, I think we're in for a really hard time as lovers of scientific discovery.

[@ruprecht9997]

Perhaps not everything can be discovered with LHC. Perhaps there are quantum or non-quantum fields that can not be provoked by force to spit out a blob of something which can be measured as a "particle". AFAIK one can not measure gravitational effects inside atoms, so what is there that requires physics to align everything under QM? The fixation on particles, as a means of expressing quantization, is okay, but in REALITY, we know virtual particles do not exist, so there has to be some deeper truth.

[@vladimirseven777]

It was made to find higgs. Something was found, clickbaits said it was higgs, lot of money were spent so it is still working. Now they want something bigger. Just in case. Maybe human kind is not ready to ask for more.

How else would you discover new things when you've reached the limit of your senses? Build microscopes, telescopes, and so on. You expect to make new discoveries just by thinking? The amount of money and resources wasted on trivial things is way, way higher. Like fashion, crazy weird expensive food, experiences where you can pay tens of thousand of $ for a night at a "10star" hotel, and so on

[@DR_1_1]

It was build because it offered huge contracts for construction and energy companies. And well paid, social status gratifying jobs for well-off engineers! Let's face it.

[@michaelgoetze2103]

@ Spot on. You get what you pay for.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Flapping with your arms, to demonstrate the butterfly effect 😂! Thank you for being so original and special. Wish you a harmonic and joyful work with your team

[@rodschmidt8952]

she should have waved her proboscis

[@mastrotentaculopapichulo]

​@@rodschmidt8952are those what I think they are? 👀

[@shrigmamale2071]

talked about this with my prof the other day. He said that while we are going to find more and more things, the resources requiered to get this knowlege increase exponentially. While newton was able to find out about the laws of gravity in his room in todays day and age we need far more money and personal to find trivial things in comparison. If this should continue we will run out of resources to continue scientific development.

[@FabienNinoles]

On one side, the conundrum of understanding complexity is itself a complex problem is real, and so unlikely to be solved using traditional approach. On the other hand, the advantage someone will gain to find such a solution is so big, the incentive to try anything is great. Very likely, it will come almost by accident and spread very fast. Which is exactly the behaviour one would expect from a complex system.

[@laughingbuddha28]

I am an indian and i am ashamed to say that science is our last and only hope. Politics has strangled science and the ignorance of people who are motivated by political groups and foreign funded NGOs with vested interests to protest necessity like nuclear reactors is the nail in the coffin. 🇮🇳💀💀💀

[@RobertJBallantyne]

As a former planetarium director, columnist and broadcaster, I’ve spent years interpreting science. What I’ve found is that a huge part of the population don’t understand what science is and what it tries to accomplish. When I took physics in high school the ‘answers’ were all in the back of the book - as if science is about discoveries and answers. It is not - it is a process that yields descriptions that sometimes have practical applications. I’ve come to dislike the term ‘laws of nature.’ Since I have a limited number of characters to type in this comment, here is the conclusion of this essay without the full argument. It is the business of science to describe how things behave (not what things are). Those ‘laws’ are really just ‘pretty good generalizations.’ For instance, Newton’s ‘law of universal gravitation’ describes how gravity behaves. It was a pretty good description of gravity (nicely describes the figure-8 spacecraft orbit to the moon and back), but 229 years later an improved description of gravity was published in Einstein’s theory of general relativity. I think that here, at the end of 2023, we’ve barely begun to describe our universe, and discover our (human) role in all of this. Our process that we call science is just starting. Newton said that he was “like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." The end is nowhere in sight.

[@TorMax9]

When we run into another ultraviolet catastrophe, some genius will come up with a new paradigm, methodology, set of concepts, and we will be off again, science will have a new boost, impetus, energy. The possibilities are boundless. We don't know what some genius will come up with in the future if allowed the space and sensibility and sensitivity to do so.

[@artstrology]

We are not too dumb to figure them out, it is more a question of academic sensitivity, and military secrecy. Science is not just physics and maths. There are boatloads of areas of study, that are set to burst on the scene, once sensitivities and dogmas are overcome. The study of time, and the flavors and patterns therein, was done well in the past back as far as 7,000 years, likely by scientists of high caliber from all over the world. There is existing consensus on a great number of areas of the study of time, that is ignored due to sensitivity and dogma. The periodic table is periodic. So are the amino acids. These correlate in function and sequence.

[@fatalinsomn1a182]

There is still so much to learn. I dont think we are really out of the beginning phases of understanding reality. People always think they pretty much know how the universe works, and they are always wrong. In the 16th century, people thought they basically knew everything, save for some details.

[@hazb8026]

Yes. The innovation of humanity is only exceeded by its hubris.

[@PeloquinDavid]

I'm an economist by training, so chaos comes naturally to me... 😉 Seriously, though, I've long thought that figuring out how to manage the chaotic behaviour of the complex systems that constitute, surround AND include us (as human beings) was the most important thing for us going forward. My math skills are not (and have never been) up to the task of "solving" systems of non-linear equations. I'm not even sure what that concept entails. If it means discovering the existence of (and paths to) possibly rare "islands of advantageous stability" in climate science, biology, economics, politics, etc. that can be maintained through human action even in the face of external shocks to the system in question, that would be grand (but, I suspect, unachievable). On the other hand, if it means finding a single "solution" entailing a stylized path to a single stylized future that ignores the inevitable reality of unanticipated external and internal shocks (including emergent or latent negative feedback loops that work to counter observed and anticipated positive feedbacks that threaten system stablility) this could, I fear, instill a false sense of security in the ability of science to help manage chaos and make us more unprepared to adapt to unanticipated shocks. I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit (more) modesty among scientists - including frustration with decades of limited progress in answering questions that they/we consider important. That's much better than there being a uniform global scientific consensus that is hostile to heterodox approaches and that asserts as theories/facts beliefs that may (eventually) be superseded or outright overthrown by some future theoretical/empirical breakthrough.

[@alanwelch9216]

Damn in another 10 years hopefully il understand everything you said instead of fooling myself into having an initiation about Most of it

[@oak4901]

absolutely, chaos theory is extremely important when we are making vast changes in our culture...the descending ladder of "problems" with the advent of EV;s is only one example....

[@neilreynolds3858]

I don't think there are solutions to chaotic equations. I think the Greeks were far ahead of us in realizing that all forms came from chaos in the beginning. We like to think that we've brought order and system to the world but it's built on top of chaos and chaos still rules the universe. It was an incredible insight by the Greeks considering what we knew 2,500 years ago but the optimism of science hadn't conquered the mind yet and we still had an iota of humility left.

[@jamesgibson3582]

The original book I found thought provoking. I still quote the 'chasing the zeros' fairly often.

[@DavodAta]

We still don't know why socks disappear in washing machines 😁 Thanks Sabine for not using background music in your videos 🙏

[@optimusmaximus9646]

Yes, no wonder I am able to enjoy her videos more than others 👍

[@marklammas2465]

I wrote a song about socks disappearing in washing machines. Maybe Sabine should sing it! 😁😉

[@cravenmoore7778]

Sabine ,excellent show as usual. I'm off to have my intuitive leap of logic. Keep up the good work ❤

[@drscott1]

The ‘capture’ of science by vested interests has stifled creative thinking. Basic assumptions need to be questioned without prejudice.

[@jeremyn4397]

I think John would chuckle at Sabines pushback using Chaos and Complexity as a catalyst for potential breakthroughs. When we are building mathematical structures, they only work due to their explanitory power of patterns in a given system; however, if a chaotic system by their very nature contains no such complete patterns, we will never have a complete model of those systems. It may be impossible to ever build a complete description of these systems. Another possibility is, as she touched on in the video, that there may be a complete description, but we may never be able to synthesis such a description, due to human limitations. The third, most problematic point is if we are able to create maths which describe chaotic / complex systems, will that be as ground breaking as the discovery of quantum mechanics or general relativity? What if these new maths do not play well with our other theories and are merely parochial in their application. Of course there is the possibility that such a new theory could help unite our currenty theories. We will never know unless we push forward endlessly right? So in that sense, I guess science will never end.

[@donm5354]

You do have good honest takes in a variety of Science issues and change according to the evidence. And make it relatable to those of us who dont have Phd's

[@ragevsraid7703]

Sabine is my hero even tho she likes a super deterministic world

[@russbell6418]

We’d rather have Sabine completely off her rocker than a lot of these kid PhD’s going off half-cocked, just to get published.

[@timjackson3954]

No problem. According to some versions of information theory, the more knowledge we have of a system, e.g. the universe, the more complicated the system becomes. That's kind of reassuring.