Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Unknown Unknowns

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised a young Max Planck not to go into physics, because “in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes.”

With the clarity of hindsight we might say, “what a maroon.”  Standing on the cusp of a century in which the world of physics would be turned on its head – led by the very man to whom he was speaking – von Jolly thought everything important had already been discovered.

Planck’s discoveries in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theories of space and time were literally unimaginable to a man like von Jolly.  His “few holes” were the known unknowns of classical physics.  He had no idea that when Einstein and Planck dug down into the known unknowns, they would discovery unknown unknowns that would change the world forever.

I predict that as the twentieth century was to physics, so the twenty-first century will be to biology.  Just as today we are inclined to smirk at von Jolly’s naiveté, in the twenty-second century schoolchildren will smirk at the naïveté of people like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who believe the fundamental questions in biology have been settled and all that is left is to suss out the details.  If today we had even the faintest glimpse of the unknown unknowns of biology that will be discovered in the decades to come, we would gasp with astonishment.

Comments
JGuy #2, Personally, I do not consider myself a Darwinist, so neither Dawkins nor Coyne are my favorite expositors of evolution. Yes, both proclaim that evolution is true. But to say that it is true is not the same as to say that it is complete ("the fundamental questions in biology have been settled"). If they said something to that effect, I would like a reference so that I can read it for myself and perhaps find out why they would say such a thing.Neil Rickert
March 16, 2013
March
03
Mar
16
16
2013
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Neil, I think I understand the spirit of his comment. Dawkins, for example, ardently espouses Darwin's theory as a fact etc... It's easy to find him saying that online, but I'm pretty sure most here have heard him say that. Naivety will be exposed when discoveries are made that unambiguously - i.e. even to the most ardent Darwinist - undermine the sacred theory of Darwinian evolution. In reflection, those, such as Dawkins, that have paraded Darwin's theory as a fact will appear quite naive. The errors made by Dawkins et.al. in that time will be in retrospect looked at as in the third phase of truth a'la Schopenhauer: Truth passes through three phases: First it is ridiculed. Second it is fiercely and violently opposed. Third, it becomes self-evident. - source IMO, if something is considered 'self-evident', having thought contrary to it's conclusion would be essentially the same as naivety. But I don't want to put words into Barry's mouth. He might explain or cite what you request.JGuy
March 16, 2013
March
03
Mar
16
16
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Just as today we are inclined to smirk at von Jolly’s naiveté, in the twenty-second century schoolchildren will smirk at the naïveté of people like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who believe the fundamental questions in biology have been settled and all that is left is to suss out the details.
Do you have a citation for where Coyne and/or Dawkins express such a belief?Neil Rickert
March 16, 2013
March
03
Mar
16
16
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply