2.10.1 I have discovered that the discussion of whether we are reaching the 'end of art' is not limited to the field of art. Apparently this is an ongoing and lively discussion in the world of science as well. John Horgan, who spent years profiling major names in the world of science for Scientific American, asks this question in The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (1996). He lists a number of disciplines and questions major personalities in their fields about whether they are reaching their limits: philosophy, physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, chaoplexity, limitology, scientific theology, and machine science. One could easily compile a list of disciplines in the humanities asking this same question, with the difference of having a bit more representation of women and minority opinion. Horgan's book does not list one woman or minority as a major authority, which could be a good sign if he is announcing the end of the world as we know it. Nevertheless, his premise is intriguing in the world of science and did not go unnoticed. It was publicly denounced by President Clinton's science advisor, the administrator of NASA, a dozen or so Nobel Laureates, and scores of critics. (Horgan, pg. 267) The simple point Horgan misses is that every end constitutes a new beginning, and by stating doubt that there will be anymore Einstein's or Bohr's in the future, he does not take into account the possible emergence of a group genius and endless mutations of disciplines that truly do result in something new. Reaching limits in science or any other discipline for that matter really means being on the threshold of the inevitable something else. [top]