Mr. Horgan tells us that we have "no more breakthroughs", but of course, scientists will only cease to find novel phenomena about which to theorize when their theories become capable of completely explaining the entire universe.

To paraphrase a certain well-known author, the universe is a much bigger place than any of us can imagine. I have no doubt that tomorrow's scientists will be discovering novel phenomena to examine long after I've left this universe for the next one.

I'm not quite sure how you can compare Marxism, an economic practice with science. Are you saying that Marxists don't believe in Science?

I think the difference between the so-called breakthroughs of yesteryear and the breakthroughs of today is a matter of perception. Understanding modern science increasingly requires a firm grasp of scientific foundations, and scientific literacy is generally poor - and probably spiraling further downward - in this country. Many "science" pieces written for the lay public are so dumbed-down that the real science is distorted or simply obscured. There is no culture of real science in American media - all the readership gets is a select bit of coverage that is chosen on the basis of its relationship to sex, money, or curing illnesses that are the focus of celebrity charity events.

I've found that the people who are quickest to dismiss the methods and progress of science are often those who never understood much science to begin with. Moreover, the declaration that we have hit an impenetrable wall in our quest for knowledge is itself ANTI-science. How many great periods in the history of scientific discovery would have been stifled by THAT attitude!

A final point - if we're going to talk science around here (I'm looking at you, Salon), then let's talk SCIENCE. Maybe you can do for science what you've done for politics and really say something meaningful and challenging. For as much as Salon criticizes our president's scientifically bankrupt national agenda, I don't see any real alternatives brought to the table.

Just because Horgan hasn't had a new idea in at least ten years, doesn't mean that it's over for the rest of us. Really, this story is TEN YEARS OLD, and it wasn't much of a story back then. It's intellectually weak and reeks of someone trying to deliberately trying to get a reaction. Well, I guess he got one, cause he's still on the same horse and probably will be until he hangs up his boots for good. Nice to call it ac day and finish your career with such a Big Idea.

Surely anyone who has been writing about science for 20 years knows that what is important about the special theory of relativity is that understanding electricity and magnetism requires a new geometry and mechanics for the universe. We cannot go faster than light; oh well, look what we gained instead. Is it important that small things appear fuzzy? This is: the concept of objects in space-time does not work on a small scale. (Hey Chief, how does that electron pass through two holes at the same time?) Horgan does not write to educate, he writes to entertain those who believe in the scientist as the magician, the flawed magician who fails to modify the universe on demand. Well, he is preaching to the converted, and he will not get far.

I strongly object to the juxtaposition of science and faith in god. A belief is a choice - to believe in something that is beyond our perception. I could believe that there are multiple universes right next to ours. This belief gains me nothing. I could believe in a higher being and it may comfort me. (Instead I may also have been conditioned into such a belief, which perhaps gains other people power over me. This can explain why not all gods people believed in at one time or another are benevolent.)

Science, on the other hand, deals with things that are within our grasp of perception. We try to explain things and a scientific explanation must be falsifiable - otherwise it would be a belief, not a result. Scientists are aware of the assumptions that underpin a theory. Newton assumed (postulated) that the world is governed by three laws of motion. Major laws that are the foundation of science are well-tested by observations. We may find small deviations that lead to new theories and postulates, such as relativity, that extend these old theories and explain more phenomena.

A good scientific theory has very high predictive power. Thus many people in the late nineteen'th century believed that the known laws of nature could be used to explain every observation of the physcial world. This is not the same, however, as to have "faith in science" as if science is a form of religion.

Perhaps the only thing that connects science with religion is that it makes us aware of the distinction between belief and know; with this comes the awareness that we actually choose to belief. (Choice is a dangerous and often frightening thing.)

The term "faith in science" is an oxymoron. You may have faith in people to invent technology to solve todays problems so we will survive tomorrow. You may also have faith in god to do this for you. In the end, it will be man who succeeds or fails in this endeavour, neither "Science" nor "Technology" nor "God."

Probably both, but that's beside the point. The writer does not seem to understand the differences between science and technology. While the two persuits are increasingly interdependent, their goals are vastly different. The scientist's goals are the discovery of knowlege and understanding of the universe. The technolgist's (engineer's) goal is invention and the application of knowlege to solve problems. The scientist wonders where rain comes from, and the technologist wonders how to keep it off his head.

We will never know everything. (We may not even be capable of understanging the universe.) There will always be more to learn. It's just a pitty that scientists have had to become so specialized. Perhaps the next breakthrough will come interdiciplinary cross-fertilization....

We will never run out of things to invent. It's just a pitty that our patent system has gotten so out of control that it is stiffling inovation. Amazon just patented customer reviews of books and products. Next it'll be reader comments about online magazine articles....

Hyaptia