11–20 of 36 posts
Very interesting. Anyone know if this applies to antibiotics? I think a lot of people, myself included, are hoping that new drugs will buy us enough time to solve the sociatal problems (e.g. heavy use in ag) causing antibiotic resistance.
Yes, and in addition, I believe antibiotics are currently considered by pharma companies insufficiently profitable to dedicate significant resources to. They're mainly going after chronic conditions now, since chronic means steady income stream.
Very interesting. Anyone know if this applies to antibiotics? I think a lot of people, myself included, are hoping that new drugs will buy us enough time to solve the sociatal problems (e.g. heavy use in ag) causing antibiotic resistance.
Yes, it does. More or less every class of antibiotic was invented between 1940 and 1960. Discoveries since that period have been mostly incremental.
Both of these statements are mere observations of trends (short term ones in the grand scheme of things). Nothing about the trends observed in "eroom's law" must hold true in the future and, similarly, nothing about the trends observed in "moore's law" must remain true in the future.
There are no causal links behind either of these "laws", nothing to make them universally applicable throughout time. Indeed, both are stated as functions of time with an implied start date. These qualities make both mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws.
In the case of Moore's "law" the implied outcome seems optimistic and I think that is why we have so far given a pass on calling it a "law". In the case of Eroom's "law" the implied outcome is much more pessimistic so I am betting that we'll be unlikely to want to recognize it. However, if we accept Moore's observation as a "law", we'll have a hard time pointing to a distinction that prevents Eroom's observation from being a "law".
In my opinion, the right answer is to stop implying that either of these observations are inevitable or representative of a truth about the universe. Then we can properly recognize that both trends are easily subject to disruption through hard work and breakthroughs in related fields, or the lack thereof.
As much as I'd like to avoid criticizing "moore's law", this is a good example of why we shouldn't be using the term unless the effect described is a properly scientific description of a universal truth. Both of these statements are mere observations of trends (short term ones in the grand scheme of things). Nothing about the trends observed in "eroom's law" must hold true in the future and, similarly, nothing about…
There's a lot in science that's mere observation.
The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
As much as I'd like to avoid criticizing "moore's law", this is a good example of why we shouldn't be using the term unless the effect described is a properly scientific description of a universal truth. Both of these statements are mere observations of trends (short term ones in the grand scheme of things). Nothing about the trends observed in "eroom's law" must hold true in the future and, similarly, nothing about…
> There is no causality in either of these "laws", and that fact makes them mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws. There's a lot in science that's mere observation. The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
With gravity we see a principle which, when mathematically described in sufficient detail, is consistent throughout space and time. What we know of it, we know only due to the observations we can make locally and in our timeline thus far; however, even with such a limited view, we can already see that gravity very likely is as it has always been and is the same throughout the universe. This is certainly not true of neither Moore's law nor Eroom's law.
Very interesting. Anyone know if this applies to antibiotics? I think a lot of people, myself included, are hoping that new drugs will buy us enough time to solve the sociatal problems (e.g. heavy use in ag) causing antibiotic resistance.
As much as I'd like to avoid criticizing "moore's law", this is a good example of why we shouldn't be using the term unless the effect described is a properly scientific description of a universal truth. Both of these statements are mere observations of trends (short term ones in the grand scheme of things). Nothing about the trends observed in "eroom's law" must hold true in the future and, similarly, nothing about…
> There is no causality in either of these "laws", and that fact makes them mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws. There's a lot in science that's mere observation. The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
Please stop this. While I agree with your overall point, we know what causes gravity (the uneven curvature of space due to the distribution of mass). You can find this out by googling "what causes gravity". It's not a mystery anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it does. More or less every class of antibiotic was invented between 1940 and 1960. Discoveries since that period have been mostly incremental.
The only exception I am aware of is this recent discovery : https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14098 Note that the paper isn't only about a new antibiotic but also about a promising method for making additional discoveries via uncultured bacteria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no causality in either of these "laws", and that fact makes them mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws. There's a lot in science that's mere observation. The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
> The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from. Please stop this. While I agree with your overall point, we know what causes gravity (the uneven curvature of space due to the distribution of mass). You can find this out by googling "what causes gravity". It's not a mystery anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no causality in either of these "laws", and that fact makes them mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws. There's a lot in science that's mere observation. The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
Good catch, I had to correct that bit upon re-reading. What I am truly aiming at is the quality of universality (applicability throughout time and space) that these observations lack. With gravity we see a principle which, when mathematically described in sufficient detail, is consistent throughout space and time. What we know of it, we know only due to the observations we can make locally and in our timeline thus fa…