Gone were the days of identifying an organism with morphology/Anatomy... Now PCR has come; DNA barcoding has emerged... and Robotics has been introduced to solve scientific problems...but I think olden sciences were much more developed.
Yes. We all seem to agree.
This is the secret of development. We have to start with well accepted facts , before we modernise and further analyse, to adapt and develop. This is why thorough bibliographical analysis should be the basis of new scientific research. Of course, we also need critical analysis, not to accept some ancient reverberating errors, that may be more easily detected through more modern research tools.
Critical analysis is fundamental.
Dear Abhijit is absolutely correct to bring the example of human morphology/Anatomy, which is the subject that I teach and research upon. It would be easy to consider the subject outdated and rejectable in terms of modern research or modern practice of Medicine. Nevertheless, we still need a fundamental basis to build our modern reasoning upon.
To me, the modern thrill is exactly that of a well fundamented and knowledgeable fine critical analysis, to adapt to modern times, and to build new modern ways ofd reasoning. It is not at all an easy task. In our Department, the most recent efforts and endeavours have been turned to adapt and modernise, and through the recycling of older knowledge (using old gold), to build modern post-graduate courses, that adapt old methods to recycle for the more modern surgical techniques, with computer assisted new training.
But we never forget the glitter of old gold in our modern molecular Era.
I agree 'old is gold', I also come into the category of 60+, but I feel science is more progressed with the era of computers, programming skills, remote sensing tools, GIS, neural networks, advanced computational methods, bio-informatics, molecular biology and so many other modern facilities and tools, which we never imagined during 70' or 80's. General IQ of younger class is much much ahead when compared with old days, we used to carry out lot of experimentations but the computational tools were not much available, results were most of the time more qualitative, specially in agricultural research, normally we were not in general very strong in mathematics (ie agricultural scientists), but now so many softwares are there there that we do not need to learn complete mathematics and we get the effective results.
This sort of comparison will always be there, but the older generation has to make way for younger ones, by giving them chance to excel and they will do far far better in research, we have to encourage them and guide them for further directions and they will do lot lot in this present age of super-computing world.
regards
I think the way you pose your question is biasing the possible answers you will receive - whilst also ignoring those sciences that very much still use morphology and anatomy for identification of organisms!
New techniques surely help advance science, but if we are over awed by them, and fail to think critically, they are a detriment to science. Instead of training students in 'science' we are training them in specific methods. Too often we see new techniques, statistical approaches or technologies, applied without reflection on what the results they produce actually mean. We need to take the time to plan thoroughly, and the time to reflect deeply. This is as necessary to scientific inquiry as it has ever been. Technology can assist or aid the labour involved in the methods employed, but it cannot replace the value of critical thinking by a well trained mind. Don't get out of the way of new scientists - get in their way and make them think hard and explain well.
Dear colleagues, in science, the new is based on the old. What is new this year may become old in a short period, as new research brings new knowledge. I have no problem with this. I will apply "old is gold" to things like friendship, where the saying is meaningful indeed. Thanks.
Yes. We all seem to agree.
This is the secret of development. We have to start with well accepted facts , before we modernise and further analyse, to adapt and develop. This is why thorough bibliographical analysis should be the basis of new scientific research. Of course, we also need critical analysis, not to accept some ancient reverberating errors, that may be more easily detected through more modern research tools.
Critical analysis is fundamental.
Dear Abhijit is absolutely correct to bring the example of human morphology/Anatomy, which is the subject that I teach and research upon. It would be easy to consider the subject outdated and rejectable in terms of modern research or modern practice of Medicine. Nevertheless, we still need a fundamental basis to build our modern reasoning upon.
To me, the modern thrill is exactly that of a well fundamented and knowledgeable fine critical analysis, to adapt to modern times, and to build new modern ways ofd reasoning. It is not at all an easy task. In our Department, the most recent efforts and endeavours have been turned to adapt and modernise, and through the recycling of older knowledge (using old gold), to build modern post-graduate courses, that adapt old methods to recycle for the more modern surgical techniques, with computer assisted new training.
But we never forget the glitter of old gold in our modern molecular Era.
What a light and scintillating topic and question! Wow!!
And, what an audience, cool and calm and respecting 'old' for it being old ...
Adding more yet a humble self explanatory example, I would try score something from the mind of 'old' colleague to the modern scientific technological colleague as follows:
Technology since time immemorial has made the life of generations better and better. Invention of a wheel, invention of cutting tools, invention of wireless, radio, telephone, etc. led to more advancements in the field of technology.
Has science always done the right efforts in all areas, or has it neglected certain areas? Is there any group of scientists working on mixing H2O (water) with CO2 (carbon dioxide and entrap solar energy for that bond fixing) ...a very fundamental act of Nature? Has anyone made a gland that produces saliva from blood? Do we all know that millions and billions of cells work 24/7 for throughout our lives to produce saliva from blood ...and how different these two things are!!!
If my mom and dad had not met physically 66 years ago I would not be writing this today, and strange, you wouldn't be reading it today. Can we forget old is gold? It is the old that gave way to the new, older one is difficult that must have to that person that time to even invent a wheel, but once a wheel is invented everything else seems easy, be that an engine of a car, or of an Aeroplane ...
Moral of the story is that in the brightness of today we cannot forget the efforts of yesterday that gave us the eyes and capability to stand and watch the bright lights today.
I will stop by saying that I would not have brushed my teeth this morning had I not gotten up, I could not have gotten up had I not had a sleep last night, and so and on and on ...and that is how I dream about you and love you all.
It is so very heartening to see such questions coming up from time to time
Regards
I am really really getting old, and have given way to the young to follow my path, path of sharewisdomNaction ...
Old science is the foundation of the new knowledge. That is why in doing research, the scientists and the researchers should have a comprehensive literature review of their research topic to know what has been achieved and contributed before.
However, the dramatic effect of modern science in the world today can never be ignored.
Let us play with words. Old precedes new or new follows the old. There would not be modern technology without traditional science. History of science follows all the matter. The important issue is the development of scientific disciplines over the time, their transformation and evolvement into new disciplines.
Dear @Abhijit, I find this article is very appropriate for the issue you have raised!
Traditional and modern sciences and technologies in India: trading new paradigms for old!
"Present day scholarships on science from points such as Sociology, Epistemology or Historiography are mostly based on the assumption that western science in its modern phase is THE paradigm for a: “Scientific Knowledge System”. If we were to accept this criterion it is unlikely that we shall discover scientific knowledge in any other tradition since we do not find any knowledge systems identical with the modern western knowledge system anywhere. To free ourselves from this limitation we must first evolve an unbiased criterion for calling a knowledge system: “Scientific”. We shall initially take up one specific branch of traditional Indian Knowledge System and examine it based on such an acceptable criteria to see how it measures up to being scientific..."
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/papers/balasubramian.a.pdf
It is possible that technology is producing data faster than it can be reliably processed. It is possible that because something is easy to measure or even a new ability to measure appears to indicate an effect when no important effect is evidenced. It is obvious in some cases that computerized numerical analysis is taken as truth when insufficient basic analysis was performed. It may be true that quick answers and need to publish push many beyond the good practices developed over centuries. This is not the fault of technology. Certainly technology enables us to be more precise and fill in gaps and correct errors that before we would not have known without new techniques.
We cannot eschew the laser for the arc light or reflection of the sun. The microscope allowed us to perceive a world that was earlier unattainable. The microscope is a technology we would hardly blame for a negative change or claim that things were better before.
Older science was more deliberate. Scientists were responsible only to themselves not a funding agency. Scientists had time to seek other opinions and consider carefully before publishing. Technology should make better deliberation in science and more careful approaches to conclusions. Old science was tedious and fraught with balky, bulky, inaccurate equipment. Technology has not failed science. We have failed science when we have used technology inappropriately and rushed to publish without sufficient deliberation.
The push of consumerism and free thinking as well as the ability to access, support, or review different advancements with one's own investments rather than just strong connections. It doesn't matter if a business is funded by everyday people, the service or product will not sell without support from the demographic(s) targeted actually purchasing the product. If it is forced on them, reviews, changes, and competitors may increase.
- Badges
- Science method