[cogman10]

The article presumes that the models we have today describing everything could still be subject to a major paradigm shift.

Maybe they could be, but it seems pretty unlikely. The edges of a lot of scientific understanding are now past practical applicability. The edges are essentially models of things impossible to test. In fact, relativity was only recently fully backed up with experimental data.

[tech_ken]

I don't think paradigm shifts have to be 'better' in some march-toward-progress sense, they can be lateral or even regressive in that way and still lead to longer-horizon improvements.

I think also what's practically applicable changes constantly. Perhaps we're truly at the End of Science, but empirically we've been wrong every other time we've said that. My money is that there's more race to run.

[ainch]

On that note, Terence Tao gave a good interview to Dwarkesh Patel talking about Kepler. He pointed out that the previous geocentric models were actually more accurate than Kepler's at the time, in part because they'd had so much complexity piled on to solve minor errors. Kepler's theory was more elegant, but at the time it wasn't necessarily a better model.

I think important paradigm shifts can often look like this - there's not necessarily a reason to expect them to be instantly optimal. Deep Learning vs 'good old-fashioned AI' is another example of this dichotomy; it took a long time for deep learning to establish itself.

[Nevermark]

I like this a lot. The Innovators Dilemma for science.

The new simpler tool always competes with highly adapted complex tools to get to a region of value generation.

Starting where it’s greater simplicity, despite less complementary adaptations, is of great advantage.

Then slowly accumulates its own version of practical complements that let it excel overall.

[cogman10]

> I don't think paradigm shifts have to be 'better'

But they do. Paradigm shifts happen because the new paradigm explains the unexplained and importantly also covers the old model. If prior data is unexplained with a paradigm shift, the shift will never be adopted.

> Perhaps we're truly at the End of Science

Who said that? Just because the core of our current models seem pretty rock steady doesn't mean there's not more science. It simply means that we can mostly just expect refining rather than radical discovery.

There will be sub-paradigm shifts, but there's likely not going to be major "relativity" moments from here on out.

[tech_ken]

> Paradigm shifts happen because the new paradigm explains the unexplained and importantly also covers the old model

Empirically it seems that paradigm shifts are more driven by deaths and retirement rather than improved fit to the data. Moreover the way that you reconcile old data with the new model can be contestable; it's not like everyone all at once says "oh this new model is clearly a strict superset of the previous one, time to adopt it". With all that said I think one could argue that this stuff is basically noise and that the process still 'trends toward progress' (and I'd agree). But I would say that the scale of noise can also be quite large relative to things a human might experience in their life. I was sort of imagining social-disruption (like a dark-age type regression) as the 'backwards paradigm shift'.

> but there's likely not going to be major "relativity" moments from here on out

I cannot understand how anyone treat this as something that can be objectively concluded; by definition these kinds of radical paradigm shifts are basically unforeseeable up until they happen. I called it the "End of Science" to draw a parallel to "End of History"-type thinking because both (IMO) take this view of "there will be no more revolutions, only incremental adjustments on an unshakeable core into infinity", which I feel is personally a 'vibes based' assessment of things. It's not even that I disagree with it so much as I feel like the statement is basically (and will always be) a pure guess, one which many people have made and been wrong about in the past.

[cogman10]

> I cannot understand how anyone treat this as something that can be objectively concluded

Mostly because the room for the unexplained in physics is really small. It's possible that we end up finding some sort of big revelation about quantum physics that completely changes how we view relativity. But even in that case we are more likely to find that relativity is just a simplification of a more complex model with better explanatory power. Very much like how Newtonian physics still works really well from quite small things to anything most humans will deal with on earth. It's only when you start talking about uncommon experiences in extreme environments where relativity starts being a requirements to make the math work.

> there will be no more revolutions, only incremental adjustments on an unshakeable core into infinity

I guess I'm just more comfortable with that position. A lot of the revolutions in science circled around detecting and measure things previously immeasurable and unsee-able. The study of EMF exploded when it did because that's also when our ability to generate and measure electricity in more than just a party trick happened.

We are at a point where things are more of an unknown unknowns with no theoretical way to observe. The physics models at the fringes are mostly centered around things we can't measure.

There just aren't interactions we can't currently predict. The only one I know about is radioactive decay.

And a lot of this shows in modern society. In physics, the last major paradigm shift was relativity. That's a nearly 100 year old model at this point. Everything we have currently is just incremental improvements on the physics model.

I don't think this is because we just aren't as smart today as we once were. Quiet the opposite. There are far more people on the planet. There are almost certainly a lot more "Einsteins" trying to find a new paradigm and they've simply failed over the decades because it's seemingly increasingly unlikely that there is something to find.

[throwaway27448]

> Empirically it seems that paradigm shifts are more driven by deaths and retirement rather than improved fit to the data.

Indeed, Kuhn's own work acknowledged this.

[paganel]

> It simply means that we can mostly just expect refining rather

The practical issue is if there will enough funds for just "refining", instead of "paradigm shifts", which I understand as new and "exciting" discoveries. I'm not a scientist, of course, this is just my layman's understanding.

[elbasti]

> relativity was only recently fully backed up with experimental data.

Gravitational deflection (General relativity) received pretty important confirmation in 1919, only 8 years after Einstein first proposed it.

Time dilation (Special realativity) was experimentally confirmed in 1932.

[throwaway27448]

Physics is a bit of a special case. This certainly doesn't apply to, say, biology, medicine, cognition, not to mention any of the social sciences—i.e. most research.

I'm also a little skeptical about the practical value of the bleeding edge of both experimental and theoretical physics. Interesting? Sure.

[cogman10]

cognition is just a special case of medicine which is a special case of biology which is a special case of chemistry which is a special case of physics.

And the closer you get to physics, the less likely any sort of major paradigm shift will be discovered (though the article focuses pretty heavily on physics which is why I do as well).

But even in those fields, there are core parts that aren't likely to ever see any sort of paradigm shift. For example, in biology, I doubt we'll see a shift from evolution as it'll be impossible for a new model to also explain what evolution does.

I agree that at the edges you'll possibly see more paradigm shifts and discovery, but those are all going to be working from things that will not see paradigm shifts. For example, biology can't escape things like single celled organisms made up from atoms and chemical compounds.

But ultimately, what I disagree with in the article is the notion that discovery won't ultimately be a process of hypernormalization. In medicine, we are unlikely to see a new paradigm that isn't germ theory. When it comes to the research, it'll mostly be focused on finding new compounds and delivery mechanisms for treatment rather than finding a new paradigm for how to treat a disease.

The softer sciences are the only place where you might find new paradigms, but that's simply because the data itself is so squishy and poor anyways that it's easy to shift around. There it's less a question of the science and more of the utility of the model (regardless of whether or not it aligns with reality).

[realityfactchex]

> article presumes ... everything could still be subject to a major paradigm shift. ...seems pretty unlikely

Alternatively: there's plenty of mainstream, accepted science that's plain, flat out, provably wrong. Yet, it is against good taste (job security, people's feelings, status quo bias, etc.) to point this out.

Hence, it can actually be tricky to catch wind of, or get a grasp on, such issues to begin with, much less pursue such issues toward meaningful, published, recognized change in understanding (that is to say: paradigm shift).

I'd name some examples, but you wouldn't believe me.

With respect to the article, it seems the current LLMs can (though, obviously, do not necessarily have to) return text that appears to reason (pretty reasonably!) about paradigm shifts, when given the context required and nudged quite forcefully toward particular directions. But, as the article seems to indicate, the LLMs seem to not tend toward finding, investigating, and reporting on paradigm shifts all on their own very much. (But maybe part of that is intrinsic to how they are programmed and/or their context?)

[worik]

> ... there's plenty of mainstream, accepted science that's plain, flat out, provably wrong : : > I'd name some examples, but you wouldn't believe me.

I probably would not. You would probably be wrong

[cogman10]

> there's plenty of mainstream, accepted science that's plain, flat out, provably wrong. Yet, it is against good taste (read: job security, people's feelings, etc.) to point this out.

I highly doubt that.

There are a lot of people that think they've proving the mainstream wrong. But more often than not, it's cranks using bad non-repeated tests. These bad tests are propped up, ironically, because of people's feelings and job security more than a built up body of evidence.

They also almost always have to ignore the mainstream body of evidence and just say it's wrong and bad because of a conspiracy.

For example, plenty of creationists believe they have irrefutable evidence that evolution is provably wrong. It's usually a few cherry picked or poorly interpreted results or sometimes just flat out lying. And often they simply flat out lie about the existing body of evidence that support evolution.

Another example is the antivaxx movement. Wakefield and RFK both built careers that made them a lot of money talking about how the mainstream was wrong. Even when the industry adopted some of the recommendations (abandoning Thimerosal), they simply ignored the fact that further data didn't support their claims.

[privong]

> In fact, relativity was only recently fully backed up with experimental data.

Can you elaborate on the assertion you made here? In addition to the important points @elbasti made about tests performed approximately a century ago, what does it even mean for a scientific theory to be "fully backed up"? Such theories can be tested and the tests either passed or the theory disproven but it's not possible to _prove_ such a theory. And to some extent we already know that relativity cannot be the final answer because it doesn't mesh well with quantum mechanics (which has been experimentally tested substantially, arguably even more than relativity has).

[hiddencost]

Nope. The edge for a lot of interesting science is difficult to use scientific software and scientists not using basic statistical techniques correctly.