All of those things you list as 2023 "breakthroughs" are basically press releases, and it was abundantly obvious during periods of technological and scientific progress, just as it is abundantly obvious we've stalled out since the 1970s.
Agreed. These are promising new future technologies (20 years away from being 20 years away, in many cases) that may or may not move the needle on day to day life.
In the 1660s, most were keenly aware that they were in the middle of the excitement of a scientific revolution. It wasn’t just identified by historians in retrospect. By contrast, if we are in the midst of another scientific Revolution it will have to be identified in retrospect. It isn’t obvious except to contrarians, which sort of proves the point.
Can you show evidence for that claim about “most” people being aware they were living through a scientific revolution? If you read any survey of the time period, let alone look through primary sources, I think you will find that this isn’t the case. True, a handful of people like certain members of the Royal Society identified major changes happening, but this was never called a revolution at the time, and the vast majority of people in 17th century England (let alone the rest of the world) were unaware of this, and would’ve disagreed if they had known. It was much more common for popular preachers and speakers of the 1660s to talk about the decay of morals, the fallen nature of humanity, and the greatness of the ancients relative to the present - not to mention the horrible events of the era, like the plague pandemic and widespread wars. In other words, the scientific revolution very much was something identified in retrospect.
This was the impression given by Herbert Butterfield is his “Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800.” I’ll add another comment if I can locate any quotes or more specific details.
Oh, here it is from my copy: “The early seventeenth century was more conscious than we ourselves (in our capacity as historians) of the revolutionary character of the moment that had now been reached. While everything was in the melting-pot- the older order undermined but the new. scientific system unachieved- the conflict was bitterly exasperated, men actually calling for a revolution, not merely for an explanation of existing anomalies but for a new science and a hew method. Programmes of the revolutionary movement were put forward, and it is clear that some men were highly conscious of the predicament in which the world now found itself. They seemed to be curiously lacking in discernment in one way, however, for they tended to believe that the scientific revolution could be carried out entirely in a single lifetime. It was a case of changing one lantern-slide of the universe for another, in their opinion- establishing a new system to take the place of Aristotle's. Gradually they found that it would need not merely one generation but perhaps two to complete the task. By the close of the seventeenth century they had come to see that they had opened the way to an indefinitely expanding future, and that the sciences were only in their cradle still.
Read the quote again. I think you'll find that Butterfield is not backing up any claim that "most" people in the 1660s were "keenly aware" of living through a scientific revolution. ("It is clear that some men were highly conscious of the predicament in which the world now found itself" is not the same thing.) We're talking about a small circle of literate elites adjacent to the Royal Society and Francis Bacon here, a tiny, tiny fraction of not only global population but also the population of 1660s London. And yes, naturally this group was hugely historically significant *in retrospect.* That's kind of what I'm arguing.
He makes this claim based on the old established Aristotelian physics having been thoroughly and publicly debunked over a very short period. Everyone paying attention (ok maybe not peasants struggling for rent) would have seen that a new philosophy and approach was needed and that it was in fact actually being implemented. The old order in ruins and a new order arising makes the revolutionary nature clear.
Our case today lacks an old order in ruins. Maybe we are in Revolution, but the need for it and the evidence for it is at least less stark than it was back then.
I don't think "the prolongation of life" should be marked green. Average lifespans have gone up as many causes of death have been ameliorated, but maximum lifespan hasn't changed much. Attacking aging itself is still the dream of futurists/singularitarians.
Basically, an LED light connected to the electrical grid is a "perpetual light." My guess was that Boyle was basically thinking of a candle that could burn continuously for years. Boyle would probably consider an LED light connected to the electrical grid to be a "perpetual light."
P.S. His mind would probably be blown by seeing NYC at night.
I cannot share much enthusiasm for the scientific "advances" of this year, or of this century, so far... (With one exception: fusion ignition).
When I go back and read Francis Bacon's "Great Instauration", he waxes at the prospects for expanding mankind's power over nature, and for relieving the afflictions of nature upon the human condition. Where the Twentieth Century may be said to have realized the promise he envisioned (along with many of the perils he did not foresee), the Twenty-first represents a contraction... Where the automobile and airplane advanced freedom of movement, and telephone and radio expanded freedom of speech in the Twentieth, in the Twenty-first, the smart-phone, with all things "Smart" - self-driving vehicles, Internet-of-Things driven appliances - have the contrary prospect of constraining, and even en-shackling our inalienable liberty. We may have the right to speak, but not without algorithm-driven consequences upon who will be permitted to hear... Turn up the AC, but if "smart-meter" says the carbon footprint is too big, it turns back down for a "greater good"... Have a juicy steak if you like, but a mutation you may or may not have consented to will make you intolerant to that protein (ref. to Matthew Liao, et al. "Human Engineering and Climate Change").
It may be said the the successes of the Twentieth Century made the contraction of the Twenty-first necessary... Perhaps, but the technological solutions on offer must be rejected. Now, more than ever, it is time to go Luddite!
"...self-driving vehicles, Internet-of-Things driven appliances - have the contrary prospect of constraining, and even en-shackling our inalienable liberty."
My guess is that you've never had the experience of an elderly loved one having to give up driving due to physical limitations, after a lifetime of doing so.
It will be a huge improvement for people who can't drive when they'll be able to simply call a robotaxi, and be driven across cities, states, countries, and even continents.
All of those things you list as 2023 "breakthroughs" are basically press releases, and it was abundantly obvious during periods of technological and scientific progress, just as it is abundantly obvious we've stalled out since the 1970s.
Agreed. These are promising new future technologies (20 years away from being 20 years away, in many cases) that may or may not move the needle on day to day life.
In the 1660s, most were keenly aware that they were in the middle of the excitement of a scientific revolution. It wasn’t just identified by historians in retrospect. By contrast, if we are in the midst of another scientific Revolution it will have to be identified in retrospect. It isn’t obvious except to contrarians, which sort of proves the point.
Can you show evidence for that claim about “most” people being aware they were living through a scientific revolution? If you read any survey of the time period, let alone look through primary sources, I think you will find that this isn’t the case. True, a handful of people like certain members of the Royal Society identified major changes happening, but this was never called a revolution at the time, and the vast majority of people in 17th century England (let alone the rest of the world) were unaware of this, and would’ve disagreed if they had known. It was much more common for popular preachers and speakers of the 1660s to talk about the decay of morals, the fallen nature of humanity, and the greatness of the ancients relative to the present - not to mention the horrible events of the era, like the plague pandemic and widespread wars. In other words, the scientific revolution very much was something identified in retrospect.
This was the impression given by Herbert Butterfield is his “Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800.” I’ll add another comment if I can locate any quotes or more specific details.
Oh, here it is from my copy: “The early seventeenth century was more conscious than we ourselves (in our capacity as historians) of the revolutionary character of the moment that had now been reached. While everything was in the melting-pot- the older order undermined but the new. scientific system unachieved- the conflict was bitterly exasperated, men actually calling for a revolution, not merely for an explanation of existing anomalies but for a new science and a hew method. Programmes of the revolutionary movement were put forward, and it is clear that some men were highly conscious of the predicament in which the world now found itself. They seemed to be curiously lacking in discernment in one way, however, for they tended to believe that the scientific revolution could be carried out entirely in a single lifetime. It was a case of changing one lantern-slide of the universe for another, in their opinion- establishing a new system to take the place of Aristotle's. Gradually they found that it would need not merely one generation but perhaps two to complete the task. By the close of the seventeenth century they had come to see that they had opened the way to an indefinitely expanding future, and that the sciences were only in their cradle still.
Read the quote again. I think you'll find that Butterfield is not backing up any claim that "most" people in the 1660s were "keenly aware" of living through a scientific revolution. ("It is clear that some men were highly conscious of the predicament in which the world now found itself" is not the same thing.) We're talking about a small circle of literate elites adjacent to the Royal Society and Francis Bacon here, a tiny, tiny fraction of not only global population but also the population of 1660s London. And yes, naturally this group was hugely historically significant *in retrospect.* That's kind of what I'm arguing.
He makes this claim based on the old established Aristotelian physics having been thoroughly and publicly debunked over a very short period. Everyone paying attention (ok maybe not peasants struggling for rent) would have seen that a new philosophy and approach was needed and that it was in fact actually being implemented. The old order in ruins and a new order arising makes the revolutionary nature clear.
Our case today lacks an old order in ruins. Maybe we are in Revolution, but the need for it and the evidence for it is at least less stark than it was back then.
I don't think "the prolongation of life" should be marked green. Average lifespans have gone up as many causes of death have been ameliorated, but maximum lifespan hasn't changed much. Attacking aging itself is still the dream of futurists/singularitarians.
Basically, an LED light connected to the electrical grid is a "perpetual light." My guess was that Boyle was basically thinking of a candle that could burn continuously for years. Boyle would probably consider an LED light connected to the electrical grid to be a "perpetual light."
P.S. His mind would probably be blown by seeing NYC at night.
I would argue that plastic is "flexible glass."
Also, a way to ascertain longitude was discovered centuries before GPS.
Two of the weekly links point to the same thing (arrowheads). Can we have the Roman flexible glass one, please?
Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. Here's the missing link: https://www.strangehistory.net/2011/02/20/flexible-glass-in-tiberius-rome/
I cannot share much enthusiasm for the scientific "advances" of this year, or of this century, so far... (With one exception: fusion ignition).
When I go back and read Francis Bacon's "Great Instauration", he waxes at the prospects for expanding mankind's power over nature, and for relieving the afflictions of nature upon the human condition. Where the Twentieth Century may be said to have realized the promise he envisioned (along with many of the perils he did not foresee), the Twenty-first represents a contraction... Where the automobile and airplane advanced freedom of movement, and telephone and radio expanded freedom of speech in the Twentieth, in the Twenty-first, the smart-phone, with all things "Smart" - self-driving vehicles, Internet-of-Things driven appliances - have the contrary prospect of constraining, and even en-shackling our inalienable liberty. We may have the right to speak, but not without algorithm-driven consequences upon who will be permitted to hear... Turn up the AC, but if "smart-meter" says the carbon footprint is too big, it turns back down for a "greater good"... Have a juicy steak if you like, but a mutation you may or may not have consented to will make you intolerant to that protein (ref. to Matthew Liao, et al. "Human Engineering and Climate Change").
It may be said the the successes of the Twentieth Century made the contraction of the Twenty-first necessary... Perhaps, but the technological solutions on offer must be rejected. Now, more than ever, it is time to go Luddite!
"...self-driving vehicles, Internet-of-Things driven appliances - have the contrary prospect of constraining, and even en-shackling our inalienable liberty."
My guess is that you've never had the experience of an elderly loved one having to give up driving due to physical limitations, after a lifetime of doing so.
It will be a huge improvement for people who can't drive when they'll be able to simply call a robotaxi, and be driven across cities, states, countries, and even continents.