John Horgan on his book, The End of Science: “(I) thought it might be useful for me to
present a succinct summary of my
end-of-science argument as well as a
rebuttal of 10 common
counter-arguments.” An interview by John Brockman.
“I believe that this map of reality that scientists
have constructed, and this narrative of
creation, from the big bang through the
present, is essentially true. It will thus be as
viable 100 or even 1,000 years from now as it is
today. I also believe that, given how far
science has already come, and given the limits
constraining further research, science will be
hard-pressed to make any truly profound
additions to the knowledge it has already
generated. Further research may yield no more
great revelations or revolutions but only
incremental returns.”
Horgan feels that scientists have turned from true science, in which investigation converges on the truth, to what he calls ironic science, ” a speculative, non-empirical mode that… resembles
literature or philosophy or theology in that it
offers points of view, opinions, which are, at
best, ‘interesting,’ which provoke further
comment” but are no longer empirically proveable. As examples, he cites superstring theory, the Gaia hypothesis, parallel universe theories in cosmology, and almost the whole of psychology and the social sciences. “Some observers say all these untestable,
far-fetched theories are signs of science’s
vitality and boundless possibilities. I see them
as signs of science’s desperation and terminal
illness.”
[Personally, I think Horgan’s faith in empiricism and “capital-T” truth is naive.The objection to his thesis he dismisses least convincingly is the charge that it is itself ironic science. The “end of science” is not upon us, because “science” as he envisions it never really existed in the first place. I often find this shortcoming in science writers who don’t do, or haven’t done, science themselves. Having invested so much in their career choice, their faith must be unassailable to avoid painful self-doubt.] The Edge
