Let's just drop the Theory of Everything... down the lift!

[Psychobilly]

Yeah, that's the problem with capitalism - it encourages you to do the shoddiest job that someone will pay you for

I spent 13 years working "academia" followed by several years secondment to a multinational company before finally entering the "real world" and frankly the total lack of practical "real world" knowledge by the "output" of some of the courses was frightening...

It would often take several months if not longer before some "engineering" graduates became really useful employees... Some of the designs they would come up with would be impossible to produce economically...

Now when it comes to the more theoretical scientists...........

Peter...

[toml42]

I think greater emphasis should be put on more vocational courses and apprenticeships, especially for something like engineering.

The problem is our high school, and i expect many others like it, convinced us the only way to succeed in life was to get a degree at university, because having a high percentage of people fed into university made them look like a more successful school.

[brianb]

I think greater emphasis should be put on more vocational courses and apprenticeships

Not sure about vocational courses. The point about education being that it teaches you how to learn, not skills that are economically useful. You get people coming out of vocational IT courses knowing how to use one particular version of one particular program - throw them a different version & they're totally stumped because they don't understand the principles.

Apprenticeships, yes I agree, but today's employers don't want to pay anyone for 5 minutes, let alone 5 years before they're productive.

The big mtivation for increasing university uptake is that it drives down youth unemployment figures. It would be better to introduce a "French style" system with a shorter working week & earlier retirement to achieve this aim.

Personally I reckon we were better off when university was for the gifted (5%) and supported by a proper grant system.

[Macavity]

I think, if I had a quid, for ever time some self-made-genius has told me that my qualifications are "useless" or queried whether I could "change a plug", I'd be a rich man. And not ALL theorists are functionally useless (so I'm told!) [only teasing]

That said, I don't think our past systems of vocational training (the "secondary mod"?) worked overly well. Both my parents suffered greatly by being denied any form of more "academic" education. I understand my mother's parents actually removed her from grammar school and employed her as a "unpaid domestic" (skivvy) in their seaside boarding house...

I tend to agree that far too many people drift into university. I do lament the passing of FULL (where needed) student grants. But then Macavity was a curious beast, who felt little affinity with the (even) "Brian Cox's" of this world (LOL), preferring to go down the pub, with the technicians. I don't think I ever fully re-adapted to UK society after a spell of living abroad. Sadly there are no vacancies for a wimpish, yet aspiring, Ernest Hemmingway. (Such is a presumption, anyway!)

[Psychobilly]

You can't beat a decent thick sandwich...

In both the Gastronomic and Academic senses...

Peter...

[ollypenrice]

"Physics always wins"

might take a while to get there for practical purposes -- but physics always wins in the end

Like gravity!

Olly

[Polar Bear]

Two areas of science (evolution and how the brain works) seem to be getting further from an understanding of how and why. The more we 'learn' of the mechanics of these processes the greater the mystery. The observable universe may be giving up some secrets regarding the how aspect, but we never seem any closer to why.

[wayne weedon]

Does there have to be a Why? I personally think not.

[SirFoo]

The problem is our high school, and i expect many others like it, convinced us the only way to succeed in life was to get a degree at university, because having a high percentage of people fed into university made them look like a more successful school.

I don't agree with your statement here. As a teacher who deals with University applicants I for one am not in the habit of encouraging those who I think will not be successful. Pupils and parents have unrealistic expectations and want to go to university regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. It would make my job easier if less went!!

[brianb]

Two areas of science (evolution and how the brain works) seem to be getting further from an understanding of how and why.

Err, no, I don't think so .... the theory of evolution is now pretty well complete and we know an awful lot about how the brain works, with the possible exception of consciousness (whatever that is).

Why? Either believe in a creator being (in which case you're just pushing the question to another level) or accept that stuff happens ...

[ollypenrice]

I'm curious to know why Polar Bear feels that evolution is getting away from us. Like Brian I would have said it was getting ever more solid and was perhaps the most secure theory in science. Sure, there are the creationists who attack it but I have no intention of spending time on that one.

Are you from Chorley, Polar Bear? I spent my teenage years in that very acceptable little town.

Olly

[SpaceCadet]

Is this a sign that Scientists have reached exasperation or are they onto something?

Left-click here-->Scientists Drop Theory of Everything Down Elevator Shaft | LiveScience

What I don't quite understand, is why do we need a 'theory of everything'?

If the Universe is more of a 'multi-verse', then we might just need to put up with theories applicable do different circumstances, different physical realms that is. Just like we have Newton Laws that we can apply to motion in straight line and some circular motion, and then we have Einstein theory when it comes to particles, energy and so on and so forth.

An interesting discussion topic. My thoughts are that, as some recognise here, having the quest to unify the theories helps expose new information. But I would also say that there is not enough tearing up the old and looking at things afresh. I think we need to do both. All too often research gets split into cliques that appear more interested in self-justification than making real progress.

I do not think having a grand unified theory is ever likely. Even if we did unite relativity and quantum mechanics I suspect that the advance(s) that made that possible would throw up information that hinted at more. To have a unified theory the universe would have to be a closed system with a definable limit. As a non-scientist I do not believe such a closed system is possible. If something has an edge it has a 'beyond the edge'. I believe in infinity. Which means there will be an infinity of GUT's.

[Polar Bear]

I'm curious to know why Polar Bear feels that evolution is getting away from us. Like Brian I would have said it was getting ever more solid and was perhaps the most secure theory in science. Sure, there are the creationists who attack it but I have no intention of spending time on that one.

Are you from Chorley, Polar Bear? I spent my teenage years in that very acceptable little town.

Olly

Hi Olly

I am indeed in the same little ex mill town at the foot of the Moors...When were you last here and which side of the tracks did you live ?

What I was refering to with regard to evolution and the brain is that although we do indeed have a greater understanding of the mechanisms the deeper we delve the more there is to be explained, and what were seen as tangible processes are not what we thought.

Darwin's classic theory is not quite how things are. There are massive gaps in the fossil record and evolution seems to go in fits and spurts rather than a continual adaptation. We do not know much about the mechanisms behind this.

I would suggest a good read 'Why Us' by James Le Fanu.

Paul

[SpaceCadet]

Darwin's classic theory is not quite how things are. There are massive gaps in the fossil record and evolution seems to go in fits and spurts rather than a continual adaptation. We do not know much about the mechanisms behind this.

Paul

Darwin was the first to admit there were mechanisms at play that he did not understand and that the theory he proposed was incomplete. Back then he knew nothing of genetics and the scientific presumption of the age favoured a kind of steady state or slow gradual change in the wider environment. Now that we are beginning, (and it is only beginning), to unravel genetics and are aware how fast dramatic environmental change can take place the mechanisms that confused Darwin are no longer a mystery.

Genetic profiling has given us a magnificent window into evolution and has done more to confirm the validity of the theory than fossils.

As for there being an incomplete fossil record palaeontologists are now skilled enough to pinpoint the age of missing links and go hunting for them in rocks of the relevant age. And in most cases they find what they are looking for. There are now at least a dozen distinct stages of primate that lead directly to us. How many examples do people want before they are satisfied? The idea that the evidence is lacking is a propaganda of a certain group of people that would not know what constitutes evidence if it came up and slapped them.

So I would say that saying evolution theory is incomplete, in this day and age and the mountains of evidence in its favour, is not an opinion based on knowledge but one founded on ignorance or denial.

[Polar Bear]

So I would say that saying evolution theory is incomplete, in this day and age and the mountains of evidence in its favour, is not an opinion based on knowledge but one founded on ignorance or denial.

First lets get one thing straight, I don't do religion. But I take the view that thinking we have an understanding of all the mechanisms involved makes us rather deluded. Yes we understand the double helix is the key to how life takes all it various forms both living and past . We can identify the differences that make us humans and a fly a fly . But looking at the complexity of how 26,000 encoded genes at the inception of life of a single cell that divides to eventually turn out a human, I am sure you will agree is nowhere near understood. More problems occur when looking at this with relation to evolutionary theory. How is this coding changed to enable evolution of a species ? Indeed we know that sometimes the DNA gets messed up but has no relevance or effects, but in other instances one sequence change can have a major influence. It seems somehow the genetic coding knows when to call a change irrelevant or important, how does it do this ? where is its own rule book.

I am neither in denial of evolutionary theory nor ignorant , but like I said originally , the deeper we delve into the mechanics and the more we identify elements of the process the more complex and bewildering things become.

[SpaceCadet]

I agree with you and I apologise if my words conveyed the impression that I was getting at you individually. In a re-read of my post I can see that is how it came across, but it was not my intention.

The fanfare that greeted the decoding of the human genome, (and there is a good argument when looking at the process to doubt this has yet been done), over egged the pudding in its promises of what secrets would be unlocked. Like all good science all it did was turn one question into 1000's of more questions. But one thing it has done beyond all reasonable doubt is to confirm the genetic relationship between all living things with enough clarity to be able to say with confidence which species are more closely related to us than others. This ability alone confirms Darwin's basic premise in the Origin of Species. I freely admit that this does not explain the mechanics of speciation but you do not have to understand the combustion engine to know a car is a viable method of transport.

[FraserClarke]

Indeed we know that sometimes the DNA gets messed up but has no relevance or effects, but in other instances one sequence change can have a major influence. It seems somehow the genetic coding knows when to call a change irrelevant or important, how does it do this ? where is its own rule book.

Surely this is the very core of "Evolution by means of natural selection" isn't it? Or is that too simplistic??

The only metric/rule is whether you have more kids than other members of your species. If you do, then your gene combination is 'good' and will be more likely to propagate into future generations. If you don't, your gene combination was 'bad' and will be less likely to propagate.

If a certain gene has no effect (positive or negative) on your ability to reproduce, then it's neither here nor there in evolutionary terms and will just trundle along being neither reinforced nor bred-out...

[SpaceCadet]

I have a little confession to make. I am a moderate advocate of Gaia Theory. And the recent explosion in papers describing the complexity of DNA/RNA has only strengthened my stance. Especially when viewing 'genetic memory'. Recent studies showing that DNA uses quantum entanglement and that pieces of DNA far apart on the strand when looked at linearly bunch together in the 'knot' to common purpose, show that the level of complexity is way beyong what we had imagined. I feel confident that in coming years it will be proven that within our DNA is a recording of experiential information that boggles the mind in its scale and scope. And in the doing gives a simple explanation of how species are able to adapt quickly when circumstances demand it. It is us humans that have the need to separate and classify but I think life itself works far more holisticly.

[Polar Bear]

I agree with you and I apologise if my words conveyed the impression that I was getting at you individually. In a re-read of my post I can see that is how it came across, but it was not my intention.

The fanfare that greeted the decoding of the human genome, (and there is a good argument when looking at the process to doubt this has yet been done), over egged the pudding in its promises of what secrets would be unlocked. Like all good science all it did was turn one question into 1000's of more questions. But one thing it has done beyond all reasonable doubt is to confirm the genetic relationship between all living things with enough clarity to be able to say with confidence which species are more closely related to us than others. This ability alone confirms Darwin's basic premise in the Origin of Species. I freely admit that this does not explain the mechanics of speciation but you do not have to understand the combustion engine to know a car is a viable method of transport.

No worries , it did indeed read like that and apology wholeheartedly accepted.

Seems we are singing from the same hymn sheet after all