What is New Science?

I did a Google search on "new science" and the only thing I found is a company called New Science.

So, what is "new science. Dr. Rochelle Walensky used the term. Here's what I read: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/07/27/covid-vaccinated-americans-advised-wear-masks-again-what-that-means/5385279001/"

What did we know back in January, when the idea of the Covid vaccine was being pushed.

1. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccine is 95% or so effective. One in 20 can get the virus if exposed.

2. The J&J vaccine was 75% effective or one in four can get the virus if exposed.

3. The mRNA vaccines flood the body with spikes that resemble a Covid spike. The body doesn't like these spikes in the body, so the defenses ramp up and find a way to get these spikes out of the body - our immune system.

4. To get our immune system fully effective, we need a second dose of vaccine. The immune system jumps into action not just one time, but twice.

5. The J&J vaccine is a "weaker" version of Covid 19 and our body finds a way to fight anything that resembles Covid 19.

6. Some people who had Covid the first time were also infected a second time. This is why they said that antibody protection wanes with time.

7. Knowing that #6 is true, it implies that the antibody protection from vaccines will also be reduced in time. The same mechanism is used, except the antibody from the vaccine is looking for Covid like spikes, where the antibody produced to fight Covid may or may not be looking for spikes.

All of the above was known, so, where is the NEW SCIENCE?

Thanks for your insight.

I can only guess what it means - I was thinking new data, but why would someone say "new science", when they mean new data?

I like latest guess. There's a nice ring to is.

I would say new science is a new field or area that has been developed through research....I would say as an example self driving cars or blockchain, solid state batteries, mRNA vaccines maybe...nuclear fusion power generation...stuff like that...

Thanks for your post. Maybe more like new technologies? I'm just guessing, because it's the first time I heard the term "new science".

Thanks for your response.

I'm curious, have you heard the term "new science" before and if so, what was the context? For me, I think the speaker said "new science" but meant "new data", but I could be wrong.

"The optimist says the cup is half full, the pessimist says half empty, but the engineer asks "how much of what is in the cup?" Don't forget the economist who says the cup as twice as big as it needs to be so sell the unused portion and realise the true value of your unused asset!

The perennial question of the half-filled glass is settled by whose hand is holding the glass. If it is the bartender's hand then the glass is half full. If it is the bar patron's hand then the glass is half empty.

Yes, but this assumes the bartender's preference of economics over pleasing a customer, and assumes the customer's belief that more is better for him. As the engineer in this example, I am the observer, and it's this disinterested position that is often the most truth-full.

Money has nothing to do with answering the question on the status of the fluid level in a vessel. The answer to the question depends only on the first derivative of this level. The one holding the vessel can imply this value.

I guess you've never been invited to an event with an open bar.

By my (advanced) age, I have been to many open bars, also designed and helped build one for my college fraternity. We were one of the minority of houses where social drinking was expected but getting drunk was a shame, rather than an expression of risk and "freedom" -- not the only one but a minority. Re status of fluid level, I agree it may not depend on money, but that's what we have measurement and control for. Re derivative, dl/d?

Thanks for your answer.

Hmmm, science of theology ... I'm trying to grasp how to define a miracle in scientific terms. Or am I looking at this too literally?

Miracles are by definition impossible, so we get into the functions of believing in impossibles. A thing need not be true or provable to have a social and psychological function. Aesop's fables and Greek mythology are examples.

Or, are miracles only impossible, because we don't have a grasp of the science behind it? Maybe we haven't evolved that far or maybe we're not suppose to know.

Aesop's fables are just that - we know they're made up stories. Greek mythology - I think we can all agree that those tales also didn't happen. Then we get to the big one, the Bible! Did those stories really happen and if so, how do we explain the miracles?

i have to separate the miracles from the lessons, as I need reason to believe anything. I see social value in organizing (belonging) and psychological value in explaining birth and especially death. BTW we "learn" miracles before we learn cause-and-effect logic, as to babies everything is magic. Any more would be off topic but maybe that's enough to spark more thought.

Agree. Anthropology could study function of such beliefs in the context of cultural evolution, but when I studied this stuff 2 gens ago they didn't go there, at least not with Euro-american cultures. Maybe things have changed, but I still don't see functions of religious beliefs mentioned in the popular media. Also, in personal contact, most people don't want to talk in that direction, even scientists. It may seem offtopic but it relates to more on-topic issues like antivaxxing and global-warming denial.

Oh my! Popular media (MSM) and personal agenda. Some believe it's politically motivated. Others feel it comes from the owner. Others see it as socially driven. But what about a business perspective?

Follow my logic for a minute. The function of a business is to provide a product or service (or both) in exchange for money. The leaders of a business have a goal - to maximize shareholder value (public companies). Typically, this is done by increasing revenues and decreasing expenses. If a TV station (or newspaper, radio, internet, etc) is going to increase revenues, it's going to be via advertising. The rate the advertiser is charged is driven by supply and demand. When does supply change? Most likely it doesn't - there's only a set number of time slots. So an increase in demand, against a fixed supply - aaahhh, that's something that can be controlled. Increase viewership and make it sticky. How does a TV station do this during the evening news hour? One excellent way is to scare people into being forced to watch. Here in CA, it happens every year during fire season. In the midwest, snow storms in winter. East coast it's hurricanes. Though those are seasonal. Then comes Covid and everyone wants to know what's going on. Here in the LA area, it's about the great looking reporters who know how to milk a story. The two topics you mention are hot now. Add the Delta variant, hospitalizations, deaths, etc. And you have a nose glued to screen news hour.

Does the average person what to understand the "science" behind things? Of course not! Most probably dreaded high school Bio, Chem and God forbid Physics! I forgot the freshman year, Physical Science class - lucky for me I skipped it. I believe that people want the Cliff notes version, so when the mantra "follow the science" is thrown out, people listen just enough and mimic what they hear - and of course much of the message and facts are lost.

I'd be very interested in hearing what the general public can tell me about how the mRNA version of the vaccine works. Or even what a virus is and how it works. Then again, maybe it's best I don't. You see, I like most people and I understand a lot about the average person and how they think. I'll keep my glass half full.

The video is interesting, thank you. The intent to support the bible with science rather than oppose them is worthwhile, as it supports our need to believe IN the unprovable. Most of us can separate and satisfy this need and still believe (no IN) what we see and can measure (science).

In the video, the speaker notes the order of creation as conforming to the scientific understanding. This is further supported by the translation from Hebrew to English of the word "day." Honest scientists should have little trouble understanding creationism (relativity helps). It's the human-divine interactions where views differ. And the assumption that one answer of many has to be both right and final. Much public misunderstanding of science is based on the need for that assumption.

Thanks for your response.

Your logic makes sense. The third scenario - can we really call that new science? Or maybe it's just new data? What do you think?

The difference is that fifty years ago, politicians didn't use New Math to their advantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OaYPVueW4

You'll get a good laugh out of this.

I watched the video in your link and I did a double take. The
"new math" is how I was taught. I was puzzled, "new math" is a 90's thing and I had long finished grade school. Then I saw the title 1965!

Though I have to admit that something happened and I now approach simple math problems in a different manner. I can't pinpoint when the change occurred. Here's how I solve simple math problems: Use 519 - 247 as an example - I start with the far left (in this case hundreds) 5-2=3, but since 19 is less than 47, it's 2 (hundreds, not three). 119-47 is 72, so the answer is 272. I check it by adding 272 to 247 and I come up with 519. I do this much faster in my head - I think that's why I adopted this way of solving simple math problems.

I guess the difference is what short-hand methods we use to calculate the answer in our heads versus working out the solution formally in long-hand on paper.

Oftentimes, I will either figure what I need to add or subtract to make one of the operands a nice round number and then just work with those.

For instance, I would subtract 19 from 519 to get to 500, then I add 53 to 247 gets to 300. The difference in the hundreds is now 200 to which I add (19 + 53) which I can do in my head (20 + 53 take away 1) equals 72 added to 200 results in 272.

I enjoy giving the answer to the (usually younger) person at the retail counter when they whip out the calculator to get an answer. And then there is this look of bewilderment when this old codger just states the answer before they can key in the first numbers.

Awesome! Formal math has it's purpose and I believe it MUST be taught to kids. Though I don't know how "they" are doing it now.

If I'm ever in line behind you, please don't give the clerk $5.19 when the bill is $2.47. Or worse, don't do it at a drive thru window! You'll have a line around the building, before he give you the correct change!

I would have handed the clerk $5.22

My four children (all adults now in their 20's and early 30's) never had to commit the "Times Table" to memory. That was criminally negligent of Maryland schools.

I'm sure it's no better now.

I don't think it's better now either, nor did many of the ones who did learn it remember it. Its precision threatened the quite useful ability to be imprecise and often get help from others. Similar with maps.

Some is genetic and parental, too; grandchild at 6.5 can do it up to 6x or 7x, says it's fun, but not yet required in school. School is necessary, but is also us.

Now we have cellphone calculators, which fits the belief that the more I can get done for me (by devices as well as people), the more power I have.

I grew up the other way, the less help I need the more secure I am, but I still use a calculator, and sometimes a slide rule (remember them? Fast, not too precise, no batteries needed).

I believe there are a few things that kids must learn. Multiplication tables are one. I can't understand why schools have stopped teaching this skill.

Yes, a phone has a calculator, but there are times when being able to calculate ... or better yet, be able to estimate an answer is necessary. I think it's setting up our kids for failure.

When I was in college, I would give clerks an oddball amount and watch to see how they struggled to make change. Back then, many cash registers weren't computerized, so they would have this blank stare!

I've grown up just a little since then and I've learned that the best way is to just hand them a credit card. My time have become more precious to me.

That's too funny! Where do you get this stuff from! Great answer - if not the best in this thread, at least the most needed!

I pick irrelevant things up… most times by accident..l then I don’t forget it…

there’s an irrelevant amusing story a while back, when a was an engineering manager I had with my designers… but that’s for another time.

When I can 'clean up' some of the smaller change in my pocket and 'produce quarters', I will, but truth be told, I'm using credit cards for just about everything these days, because, like you say, it is quicker.

I know a guy that squeezes their nickels so hard… it craps pennies… I can connect you with them…

One of the credit unions in the area let's the members use the change counter machine. I love it - I take a bag of change and dump it in the machine! For a time, we had one of those 5 gallon plastic water bottles with a lot of change in it. I didn't think it was a good use of floor space, so off it went to the credit union!

With the current coin shortage, if you brought in a five gallon water bottle of change to the bank, they'd probably give you a lollipop as thanks for increasing the coin supply.

(I remember getting lollipops when I accompanied my mom to the bank.)

Lollipops with the loop for a stick!

My dad would take us kids with him to the banks every Friday night. We'd go to the savings and loan first - a much smaller building than the state bank. I also thought they were friendlier. And they always gave us kids a lollipop! Then we'd go to the big bank - the state bank. It was not as personal - felt more business like. It was hit and miss for a lollipop.

Here's an interesting story. I believe a lot of our personality comes from osmosis. When we're young, we absorb so much. Unspoken things are included.

Here's two things I remember (I remember more, but I want to talk about just these two today.

1. Our family was shopping one evening, when my a young man bumped into my dad as we were walking in the store. My dad felt for his wallet and it was gone! He told mom as he headed out the door to go catch the guy. I wanted to go with, but mom told me to stay put. We watched as dad chased the guy through the parking lot, but he couldn't catch him. I remember the look on his face when he came back. He felt like he lost face with our family, but for me, I've always been proud that dad gave it the best try he could!

2. One evening in the fall, we were at the state bank drive thru window (there were a lot of lanes at that bank). When we got to the window, my dad did his banking. We pulled away from the window and he pulled to the side to count the money. The teller gave him too much! He told mom, then parked the car and ran in. The only thing he said when he came back was that the girl was so thankful, because she was responsible for the mistake.

Some great lessons!

Re: Your teller story. My father would have done the same, even if the mistake had been a nickel. Unfortunately, many children receive a different lesson: Teller gives father some money. Father pulls away and counts the bills. Laughs. "Hey, she gave me $20. too much! What luck. Bank's loss, our gain, right son? Let's go for some treats!"

Clear instances of leading by example. Here are examples of people who believed personal honor and integrity is more important than monetary gain. If only more individuals in the public eye would be so honorable.

Unfortunately, most people who "love" being in the spotlight care more about themselves than others. I think we all enjoy our 15 minutes of fame, but there are those who feel 15 minutes isn't enough.

You mean like the "Bee Cees" from NY?

I"m glad to hear it. Those little unspoken acts can sure make a difference in our lives! Learning thru osmosis!

Awesome!

Our daughter tells us things like this. When someone holds the door open for her at a store or at the bank. Or when someone picks up something she drops.

She calls these people gentlemen and unfortunately, she says it's too rare of an occasion for these things to happen to her.

I will say that the people in the south and Texas have great manners. It was such a nice feeling to hear people say maam and sir to their elders. Holding door open, a nice warm, genuine smile, courtesy ... Why has this been lost in the big cities?

As a society, I wonder when did we lose our manners?

Having lived in a rural farming area that’s true, I feel there is more empathy there, but along with empathy, there is tough love also, where there are things then need to be said, and that is where the thin skin drama queens have a problem with because if they’d address the problem, it’ll hit too close to home for them. It’s much easier to blame someone else.

There may be a correlation to physical toughness and mental toughness.

In farming communities, people work very hard. They have not only physical strength, but a physical toughness. I also believe they're more empathetic and they understand that it's okay to "tell it like it is" vs sugar coating things.

Look at people from New York. May or may not have physical strength, but they have a physical toughness. Walk to the bus/train station, wait on the platform/bus stop, stand in the train/bus, then walk to the office. Rain, snow, sleet or hot humidity - it doesn't matter, you have to get to work! I also believe the people of New York are very good people - watch what happens to the city when tragedy strikes! And they aren't known to be soft - they tell it like it is and if you can't handle it, tough!

I also believe the midwest is like this too. Terrible weather! Hard work conditions. Character builders and even if the truth hurts, lay it on me!

There are some wonderful people here in CA too, but there are also too many progressive liberals and unfortunately, there's also too many "fair weather friends". And due to the high cost of living, we work a lot out here - leaves much less time to do the things we want or to hang out with friends!

I watched the video in your link and I did a double take. The
"new math" is how I was taught. I was puzzled, "new math" is a 90's thing and I had long finished grade school. Then I saw the title 1965!

I was brought up on this not so much ‘new’ math. As well as how education was being delivered… I came close the being a victim of this.

IMO, this ‘New FILL IN THE BLANK’ is just part of an evolution so passing on knowledge so the society doesn’t get stagnant.

And if it doesn’t work out hopefully before too much damage is done, to change or evolve in a different direction.

Your post brings us a question. If the student of the new xyz (fill in math, science, English, etc) properly learns the method, then he believes that his way is correct. When another "new" version comes up, he will shoot it down, because it goes against the "perfect" method, which is the one he learned and uses. Now the question is posed; if a method is perfect, what can be done to improve it? Can perfection be improved? By definition, the answer is no - it's already perfect, the best there can be! So, each group of student who learn the "new" method will go thru life believing that their method cannot be improved upon AND they will believe that any "new" method is a waste of time.

I could go deeper, but it's only Wednesday and I still have some files to complete.

In college, my math professor said, Math is a universal language. Either you know it, or you don’t.

with what what’s happening, IMO, I believe it’s the liberal education that’s trying to put on window dressing by making it more complicated for what ever reason. someone trying to make there mark like Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz with the development of Calculas?…

Or Someone who is bored and is wielding power?… I don’t know.

and that’s just with numbers… it gets worse…

There's a woman named Rita who is also a Cheetah in the Olympics.

I heard there are four big problems the folks in Lichtenstein are having.

1. Rita and Coco can't sit still in the starting blocks and they're always disqualified for too many false starts.

2. In the rare event that they can get a clean start, neither one stays in his/her lane - another dq.

3. I've heard that there was a race where either Coco or Rita did finish (and easily won). The problem was after the race. It was a very gruesome site, but the Cheetah ate one of the other runners. Luckily it was the slowest one - Go Darwin!

4. After each race, the trainers are having all sorts of problems getting Coco and Rita back in their cage. I've seen this with other human runners - they just linger on the track after the race is done, but sooner or later, they return to their teammates.

I thought that was Rosie Ruiz in the Boston Marathon.

No, she blatantly cheated. Not running the entire race is morally and ethically ... ummm ... uhhhh ...

Never mind...

At least the Cheetah will be disqualified. Imagine competing in the decathalon against this one.

with what we know, not all answers are discreet with a yes/no or a 1/0

But we can’t stop pushing to get the information to come up with a discreet answer.

but I still say, math is a universal language.

and on a whimsical aspect… as far as the cheetah/cheeto outcome. I heard he/she was disqualified because a impala ran acctoss the track and the cheetah ran after it, and by chasing it down… he/she left the track and was disqualified.

That video is from my era (mid-sixties). As part of the "new math" we were taught that counting could be done using different base systems. It was revelatory. Until then we had assumed that counting using base 10 was just the way things were - that base 10 was part of the fundamental structure of numbers. Not so! We learned simple arithmetic operations using different bases, from base 12 down to base 1. Of course this was to help us understand computer logic, which utilizes base 1. Punched cards at the time. A hole or no hole. On or off. Zero or one. Not sure if this is still part of the curriculum. If not it should be - and not just because of the computer connection. I think it is worthwhile to know that if our fingers and thumbs totalled 8 instead of ten (like the characters on The Simpsons), we would probably be counting to base 8 - with no diminishment of computational capacity.

I'm reminded of the late Lister Sinclair, who was a well known Canadian radio and TV host. He had a degree in Mathematics. He said that if he were ever to write an autobiography, he already had the title picked out. It would be called, "Math and Aftermath".

In college, I remember a class called EE228, which was a beginners digital course with Boolean Algebra! NAND, NOR, OR, AND gates. I don't think I could solve any gate logic problems now (at least without a thorough refresher course), but back some 36 years ago, I was pretty good at it.

Our class was also the first to use a disk drive vs punch cards when working on one of the main frames. I heard horror stories of punch cards being blown away in one of the blistery Chicago days - cards out of order = time to reprogram!

Sperry Univac 9000 with the FORTRAN WATFIV-S compiler using the 80-column cards during freshman year computer science class. The next year ('82), we used a brand-spanking-new Data General mainframe with VT100 terminals running the FORTRAN-77 compiler. Crashed so often, I wished we could have gone back to the punch cards and waiting for the batch to be run. We could de-bug our code much faster with the punch cards. Based on my experiences with Data General, I'm not surprised they were one of the first one's to go. DEC machines seemed to be a lot more stable.

I don't remember the mainframe we used. I do remember FORTAN-77 and the VT100 terminal.

I remember another computer we had - I think it was called a Prime, but I could be mistaken. It was a parallel processing mainframe. That was in 1983 (Freshman year for me). CS100 - the only CS class I had to take.

I never took a COBOL or C++ (or whatever it was called) course. We did take a machine language class, but it was an EE course and I really liked seeing how the bits of data moved through the "machine". It helped me understand how a processor worked in very simple terms.

If we all originated in Africa, how can there be any racism? ...This seems more like tribalism, an instinctual survival skill...

The beginnings of math are founded in African tribalism? Certain philosophers and theologians contend that math predates humanity. Pythagoras believed that God is the Great Geometer, that everything is structured on the number 3. The Christian Gospel of John opens with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word "word" is a translation of the Greek "logos" - meaning reason, principle, thought. So, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for an alternative translation of the first sentence of the Gospel of John to read, "In the beginning was mathematics, and mathematics was with God, and mathematics was God." Of course, the social justice types, who see racism everywhere, would argue that the mathematician God of the Gospel of John is the Judeo-Christian God, the God of western civilization, and therefore our educational worship at the altar of mathematics, and our forcing of those we have colonized to worship at the same altar, has marginalized the non-mathematical culture of, for example, North American First Nations people and their non-mathematical Great Spirit God.

Well there are some that believe the study of God directly is blasphemous and forbidden in nature... I would say that some native Americans believed in a harmonious existence, and harmony certainly can be thought of as having its roots in mathematics...indeed there are several similarities that can be drawn among most, if not all, religions...so this seems to me to be different perspectives of the same thing...every religion has its holy men, those that would do God's work, or at least attempt to...Religions flourish because they are successful, having the same core belief's amongst a group enhances the tribal ties and presents a stronger united front...

True. The harmony of the circle is very important in native American spiritually, and of course, the mathematical properties of the circle have been pondered since Archimedes. Relating to circles: In our area there is a famous petroglyph site, a sacred place to local First Nations people. A few years ago, the provincial government announced plans to build a structure to enclose the site to protect and preserve the ancient markings. Government officials were surprised and baffled that this plan was opposed by the local Ogibwa, who said that preservation of the glyphs would be an interference in the natural circle of things. They said, let the engravings in the stone wear away. That is the way it was meant to be. The spirits will continue to visit this holy place even when the images are gone, but a building will contaminate the site and the spirits will flee.

I hope you're joking. Math is racist?

I read the quote and it seems like the author is saying that underprivileged kids are racially discriminated against, because the educational system has underserved them. What??? I guess we can generalize his statement and we can come to the conclusion that nearly every part of the educational system is racist, because the underprivileged kids receive less worthy teachers, schools and supplies. And since math is one part of the educational system, then math is racist too. I guess we can say that science is racist.

"I hadn't known until now that algebra and geometry are racist, but now that I do know, I'm glad that today's students won't be exposed to such material." (my words)

Of course I'm being sarcastic. I don't believe in using emoticons. In my view an emoticon is analogous to a 'nudge, nudge' after you tell a joke.

Those who look diligently for faults can usually find them.

Perhaps "latest developments" would have been more to you liking.

To me, "New Science" simply means new developments have occurred in the field of science.

It's too late for 60,000 victims of Covid-19 and their families.

The mindless hysteria over getting the vaccine can be traced to a single source. We know who!

"The mindless hysteria over getting the vaccine can be traced to a single source. We know who!"

We certainly do. Dr. Fauci.

2021/07/14/dr-faucis-emails-tell-the-story-of-panic-lies-and-a-possible-cover-up/

Gym Jordan?????????????????? He is a sick man.

You are even more ignorant and intelligence challenged than I thought possible.

I am not a fan of the man. As an expert virologist, he sure has made a lot of mistakes. I hope we can replace him with someone who is competent.

My sister believes he has an alterior motive. Namely, he's going to benefit from the use of the vaccine. She thinks he pushed Moderna, because he has a stake in it. All I know is that the stock has made a lot of people one heck of a lot of money. Much, much, much more than AMC.

For me, I see a red flag when the word "science" is used to prove a point. I could be wrong, but I believe it was a huge mistake for "those people" to jump on the slogan "follow the science". Why? As a science minded person, I think back to my high school and college science classes, I was taught that there's a method (scientific method) to solving problems. We all know it here and I'll assume that each of our versions is similar. If that's the case, then there's a huge flaw in many parts of the early Covid response. Follow my logic for a second for one flawed, non-scientific solution.

1. An esteemed Doctor (F) is an expert in viruses.

2. This man tells us not to wear masks.

3. An expert in viruses will know how lung related viruses travel from one person to another - that a mask reduces the virus particles from being expelled and transmitted to others.

4. Next, the flip - Yes, wear a mask to protect others, just in case you have Covid.

5. Next, the flop - Yes, wear a mask to protect yourself from others.

6. And then the extreme - Don't just wear one mask, wear two!

How can we say this is based on science? I can think of many analogous stories that are based on science - stories that debunk our Doctor's mask directive logic.

By the way, I should've started with: I hope you're feeling better. How are you doing? How's the progress?

Thanks for sharing - I appreciate you're input!

Last night, I was in one of those moods. After reading my post, I think I should've stated things a little differently ... or maybe added a clarification. So, here goes.

I'm confused by the term "new science". My gut feeling is that it was purposely used to get the "follow the science" people on board. I have a problem with "follow the science", since the response from those people isn't very scientific. I've used masks as just one example.

If swaying people to "believe" by using the word "science" is how esteemed people operate, then we are definitely in a sad state. And I feel sorry for the sheep who blindly jump on the bandwagon, because someone they "follow" tells them to. What ever happened to doing research and having an original thought?

I do have two final question to ask.

1. If the speaker used the words "new data" instead of "new science", what do you think the response from the general public would be?

2. Has anyone used "new science" to describe anything? Or in conversation? Has anyone even heard the term, before reading this post?

I was told that I need to tell jokes to loosen up my audience. Sorry, I should've started with one.

Why do snails who lose their shells always lose a race?

Because they're sluggish!

Would new science classify a fly without wings a walk?

...'old' science in a 'new' wrapper...

The 'scientific method' is defined in no uncertain terms. This is not the same as 'science'. It is a well defined method of systematized study of a subject.

The word 'science' is often misused, poorly understood and often without any qualifications in the general press, as are many words. This artistic license (?) can make things interesting and sometimes amusing.. but often leads the public to very garbled understandings of complex subjects.

The knowledge on any subject has never been stationary, no one should think that science is stationary.

"new science" .. "new math"...

At best? ... new perspectives or knowledge on a given subject

At worst? .... 'click bait' or used for the promotion of an old understanding (usually by those unaware of the subject's history) under a new name.

Agreed, except for the word "leads," as I see such non-sense as following and thus "fertilizing" the "garbled understandings" to support their social and relational needs.

I think there is a tendency in our modern times in which computer technology has permeated every aspect of lives that somehow we have progressed in our understanding of the Universe.

It seems people in academia trying to get accolades will invent "new" terms like new math's, new science and God knows what else. I think they are meaningless terms.

I come from a strict physical science training based on what could be called "classical physics".

In the last 25 years I have been working with life scientist's. Some 300 years ago without the use of computer technology a few great thinkers derived an exact mathematical relationship which described the motion of the planets. This law was derived without using modern statistical techniques . It was an incredible achievement.

Move some 300 years forward and we have available to everybody supercomputers and free open source statistical software. What was happened in recent times we have moved into trying to understand complex systems which involve not only complex physical systems but perhaps the most difficult aspect of all and that is living systems. Think about a 100nm virus look what it has done to us.

So we have had to deal with huge vast quantities of data where the only methods we can use is to try and create statistical mathematical models. This links into Chaos theory. One only has to think about the modelling behind the current issue are humans the cause of changing the climate on our planet?

Is this the core idea of the "New Science"? That statistical modeling will show cause and effect. In other words show proof.

Well the only discipline I know of where proof means anything is pure mathematics.

Statistical methods can not show cause and effect, as the great statistician John Box said "All models are wrong but some our useful"

Could it be that the understanding of life involves dealing with main modern idea in Physics and that is Quantum Mechanics. Is this the New Science ?

I appreciate your response. I'm in agreement and I find it very disturbing that the general public will chant mantras they don't understand.

Let's hope this "new science" doesn't catch fire.