CorruptUser wrote:The scientific method didn't exist 500 years ago, yet people will still far more advanced than primitive man.
Depends how you measure it I guess. The people of 500 years ago were no more capable of creating a self-driving car or putting a man on the moon than those of 100,000 years ago. If the scientific revolution had never occurred, mostly likely they'd still be no more capable 500 years hence.
Hell, 500 years ago doctors didn't even know that washing your hands before surgery was a good idea...
Scientific progress is exponential, not linear. I expect more scientific progress in the next 50 years than in the last 500 - especially if we crack hard AI.
The difference is the amount of people. A thousand people produce one scientist, but ten million people produce ten thousand scientists.
You have a good point. But the population has gone up tenfold in 500 years - while the number of scientists has gone up far more than tenfold.
And, anyhow, what has permitted the population growing tenfold? It's the scientific revolution (and the industrial revolution to which it gave birth) as applied to agriculture.
Sure, there's a virtuous circle going on, but I maintain that it's scientific advances that are the key driver. Hence my despair at politicians only following the science if it backs up their preconceptions, and trying to suppress it otherwise...