Philosophy and science used to be identical, and I find that interesting. Natural philosophies like physics used to be considered in the same realm of thought as metaphysics. They were even considered to be less useful than philosophies like ethics and so forth. It wasn't until our philosophical musings of the world became sophisticated enough to start making accurate predictions that science really made a break from the other philosophies. However, we are living in a time where science is by and large unquestioningly dominant.

We have complicated theories to describe most of the natural phenomena that we have experienced as a race, and I think that some of us take this for granted. It is amazing to live in a time where we are able to predict how a new plane will fly without having even built it. While this might strip a little of the wonder from nature by ascribing surprising events as products of a complicated system rather than something mystic, and also creating social problems as humans wield increasing power and influence on the world, the scientific program has been on balance positive for our species so far, in my opinion. Though I'm aware that that last value-judgment is controversial in some camps.

However, science has accelerated past the point where the "big picture" is apparent to even practitioners of it. The frontiers of science are so far out that it is next to impossible to contribute to multiple fields without near herculean effort. In response to this, scientists becoming increasingly specialize, narrowing down their area of interest to a single focal point. Contrasting this with science of the Enlightenment, where it was possible to grasp enough of current theory to at least be conversant with people on the frontline.

Furthermore, science has proven to be so overwhelmingly successful as a program that it has become almost deified by its adherents. I think that past scientific advances have contributed so much to science's street cred that any scientific domain has become unquestionable unless (a) you really know what you are talking about or (b ) you really don't know what you are talking about. And sadly most of us lie in a middle ground where we are unable and unequipped to think critically about a result, and are forced to trust the ruminations of domain experts. Again, contrast this with science from two centuries past where anyone with a passing knowledge of calculus was able to make some sense of a physics result.

I think that both are damaging to science as a community dialog. Both points speak to fracturing within science, breaking it into sub-disciplines that will have increasing difficulty in communicating. While there may be surprising crossovers in certain areas, I think that these are the exceptions and not the rules. It also speaks to active science becoming more and more removed from the hands of non-specialists, and so I think will change the attitude of science from a living body of knowledge to a more dogmatic attitude.

Edited to fix the smilie B)

That's so true. I just want to know so much things, but life is to short to know everything what humankind today know (beside I think we know even today not much).

True and somehow that concerns me. I think access to knowledge and also the ability to understand the knowledge is a important aspect for the humankind future. However someone really don't have to know the details of every domain. I think Wikipedia is a good step forward to keep the science as a living body (However it may need some improvements).
At the other hand I think that domains like ethic are to much neglected in the world today. And such domain can't (or at least it is very difficult) be learned through e.g. Wikipedia. Such domains need the ability to make own cogitations or at least the ability to make the right questions.

I think specialization is a problem that's common to the world we live in. Being a "jack of all trades" isn't nearly as important in this day and age and you get more out of your job/career if you have a tight focus.

Really, I think it's a natural progression of progress. Think about it: back in colonial times, a farmer in Ohio would probably be raising a couple cows, a few chickens and a pig or two, in addition to various grains that he and the animals needed. Today, a farmer on that same patch of land is growing about 40 acres of soybeans. He specializes in that, and that makes a better product for everyone else, and the money he makes from the sales of the beans goes towards buying all his necessities. He doesn't need to raise cows himself, he can buy beef from the butcher.

It doesn't surprise me that conversations these days (at least mine) concern everyday matters or popular culture--things we all know pretty well and don't have to focus a lot of our time on.

Would you mind if I plagerized this entire post? I belong to another forum where I think the other members would be fascinated by your reasoning.

Sure, I'm just interested in what people think. Let me know what the thoughts were?

Speaking of community dialog - the internet was originally based on open access and was an interactive medium among scientists (researchers) to communicate about their works. it's why the internet is so "wild" and spontaneous as a system today. Commercial forces have acted to try to limit that openness, though, and I think that is indicative of the development of science as a whole. Less real dialogue and common ground and more commerically-driven, highly regulated exchange of information. It's easier to think in dogma if there is isolation and too much control.

TD is that site BNET perchance? I;m sure I've seen that post or something almost identical there...