How long can science move forward?

[Philosophy Explorer]

The answer depends in part on what you call science, politics, economics, etc. as well as what it means to move forward.

From my personal experience, I believe we've barely scratched the surface. If you consider sales as a science,
there's no question for me we have a long way to go. E.g. I have related sales to tv transmission where I can see improvements in tv transmission based on basic knowledge of information packets.

I don't wish to continue talking about myself. However one of my beliefs is that due to trade secrets, progress in science is slower than it needs to be. Calculus is held back to an extent because there's a simple method that's not taught that can either simplify problems or make problems solvable (the method I've discovered isn't listed in Schaum's outline).

PhilX

[TimeSeeker]

I don't wish to continue talking about myself. However one of my beliefs is that due to trade secrets, progress in science is slower than it needs to be. Calculus is held back to an extent because there's a simple method that's not taught that can either simplify problems or make problems solvable (the method I've discovered isn't listed in Schaum's outline).

The reason for this is not exactly trade secrets. Sometimes. More often it is that people with knowledge don't have time to play the 'academic publishing' game. Getting paid for good work is far more rewarding than getting peer recognition.

And when your work hits the public domain - somebody will reverse engineer it

Also, the scientific method itself is a tad idealised and somewhat limited when faced with complexity. There are very few experiments that generalize well outside the bounds of a controlled environment, and so empirical/1st hand knowledge (what we might call wisdom) is very difficult to formalize or learn from a book.

[surreptitious57]

Also the scientific method itself is a tad idealised and somewhat limited when faced with complexity. There are very few experiments
that generalize well outside the bounds of a controlled environment and so empirical / first hand knowledge ( what we might call wisdom )
is very difficult to formalize or learn from a book

The scientific method is indeed limited as are all methodologies but the basic principle of testing all hypotheses to absolute breaking point or as close to as possible cannot be faulted. It is very effective and less a superior method can be discovered will be used for a very long time to come

Knowledge and wisdom are not the same by the way

[TimeSeeker]

The scientific method is indeed limited as are all methodologies but the basic principle of testing all hypotheses to absolute breaking point or as close to as possible cannot be faulted. It is very effective and less a superior method can be discovered will be used for a very long time to come

Knowledge and wisdom are not the same by the way

Sure, but the the point about the complexity of reality outside of the lab stands.

In multi-variate systems with multiple causalities, interactions and emergent phenomena between the various agents - determinism really goes out the window. That is - science is works for closed systems. It doesn't work all that well for complex open systems. At least not if we expect determinism/control.