has there been any examples of the state of knowledge regard anything, anything at all, over the last say hundred years, or any period within that time, of which it might be argued understanding of whatever declined

consider the proposition very loosely

the reason I ask is to explore the force of the commitment to the idea that knowledge and understanding always progress

and further, are there examples of obvious progress in one area, where it clearly resulted in a decline of knowledge and understanding regard something else

I guess a lot of institutional knowledge has been lost. Things like how to operate a fleet of steam locomotives, or how to use a telex machine.

transition said:

has there been any examples of the state of knowledge regard anything, anything at all, over the last say hundred years, or any period within that time, of which it might be argued understanding of whatever declined

consider the proposition very loosely

the reason I ask is to explore the force of the commitment to the idea that knowledge and understanding always progress

and further, are there examples of obvious progress in one area, where it clearly resulted in a decline of knowledge and understanding regard something else

Certainly.

The understanding of very many indigenous languages has decreased over the last 100 years.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

has there been any examples of the state of knowledge regard anything, anything at all, over the last say hundred years, or any period within that time, of which it might be argued understanding of whatever declined

consider the proposition very loosely

the reason I ask is to explore the force of the commitment to the idea that knowledge and understanding always progress

and further, are there examples of obvious progress in one area, where it clearly resulted in a decline of knowledge and understanding regard something else

Certainly.

The understanding of very many indigenous languages has decreased over the last 100 years.

> has there been any examples of the state of knowledge regard anything, anything at all, over the last say hundred years, or any period within that time, of which it might be argued understanding of whatever declined.

I ought to be able to rattle off at least 20 of these without trouble but my state of knowledge of such has declined. I’ll have to think about it.

There was a recent Better Homes and Gardens episode about reviving lost crafts.
Algol programming.
Infinite numbers were better understood from 1880 to 1930 than they have been since.
Superseded technology.
Morality.
“New math”.
A recent one – handwriting (modified cursive).
How to shit in the street.
Inorganic chemisty in the liquid phase.
Which reference books to use.

I’m tempted to say ‘nuclear technology’, but that’s not true in general, only certain aspects of nuclear technology are less well known now than in the era 1955 to 1975.

> the reason I ask is to explore the force of the commitment to the idea that knowledge and understanding always progress

Morality doesn’t always progress.

mollwollfumble said:

There was a recent Better Homes and Gardens episode about reviving lost crafts.

Certainly there would be many crafts where knowledge was lost.

mollwollfumble said:

Algol programming.

I should think there are still plenty of proficient Algol programmers around.

mollwollfumble said:

Infinite numbers were better understood from 1880 to 1930 than they have been since.

How could you know that?
Seems unlikely to me.
Not that I have any way of knowing.

mollwollfumble said:

Superseded technology.

Yes, plenty of those.

mollwollfumble said:

Morality.

I doubt it.

mollwollfumble said:

“New math”.

What does “new math” cover, and why do you think it is lost?

mollwollfumble said:

A recent one – handwriting (modified cursive).

Certainly on the decline, but I doubt totally lost.

mollwollfumble said:

How to shit in the street.

As above.

mollwollfumble said:

Inorganic chemisty in the liquid phase.

Why would that be less known?

mollwollfumble said:

Which reference books to use.

Now that I disagree with.
I’d suggest that knowledge is way higher than it has ever been.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m tempted to say ‘nuclear technology’, but that’s not true in general, only certain aspects of nuclear technology are less well known now than in the era 1955 to 1975.

Why would there be a decline there?
Still plenty of people from that era alive today, and the technology has been continuing.

The original question said “decline” not “lost”.
Knowledge is lost whenever a person dies.

Another decline is Australian manufacturing knowledge.

The Rev Dodgson said:

> Morality.
I doubt it.

> “New math”
What is it.

> Inorganic chemisty in the liquid phase.
Why would that be less known?

> I’m tempted to say ‘nuclear technology’, but that’s not true in general, only certain aspects of nuclear technology are less well known now than in the era 1955 to 1975.
Why would there be a decline there?
Still plenty of people from that era alive today, and the technology has been continuing.

There have been several high points in the history of world knowledge of morality. Ancient Greece was one, with the complete revamping of their legal system to reflect systematic morality. Another was mid 1800s, where advancing knowledge of morality led to a complete revamp of the British legal system, which became the standard worldwide. These days people wouldn’t recognise the difference between moral and immoral if it ran over them. And yes, I’ve read through the texbook of a recent university subject that teaches practical morality.

The “new math” movement taught children to do base n arithmetic by hand. eg. multiplying 43 by 32 in base 5. Nobody does that by hand these days.

As for inorganic chemistry in the liquid phase. It’s an annoyance to me that knowledge of this has declined. Whereas organic chemistry has lept ahead (up to a point), and solid state inorganic chemistry has lept ahead, liquid phase inorganic chemistry has shrunk to become limited to acid-base reactions and mining industry ore purification.

The decline I’m thinking about with nuclear technology is several-fold. One is the decreasing use of radioisotopes. At a rough guess, only about half as many radioisotopes are sold now as were sold in the 1965 to 1985 era. Radioisotopes are used less in for example in tracing water flow directions, and in measuring soil moisture content, and in luminous paints. And the range of radiosotopes used medically has shrunk.a bit. A second is the loss of civil engineering and mining use or nuclear explosions. A third loss had been the reduction in scope of research nuclear reactors, in earlier days (1955 to 1975) there were about 50 different types of research reactor, now that’s down to perhaps less than 25. To put that another way, the scope of research reactors for nuclear technology has shrunk to exclude the more radical possibilities.

plenty of knowledge decline resulting from actual beneficial progress when they decimated the imperialists, can’t complain

SCIENCE said:

plenty of knowledge decline resulting from actual beneficial progress when they decimated the imperialists, can’t complain

Imperialists?

mollwollfumble said:

As for inorganic chemistry in the liquid phase. It’s an annoyance to me that knowledge of this has declined. Whereas organic chemistry has lept ahead (up to a point), and solid state inorganic chemistry has lept ahead, liquid phase inorganic chemistry has shrunk to become limited to acid-base reactions and mining industry ore purification.

In an episode of “Hamilton’s Pharmacopeia”, it was said that the increasing restrictions on laboratory equipment and chemicals imposed by law enforcement in an effort to stop illegal drug production is stifling students’ interest in chemistry. How many university chemistry graduates had chemistry sets when they were young? If these graduates didn’t have chemistry sets when they were young, would they have studied chemistry, or chosen a different field? If students who would’ve studied chemistry don’t study chemistry, then what effect would this have on the future of the subject, and on industry that relies on the subject?

As a person who enjoys watching quiz shows, one thing has become clear to me: nobody knows chemistry. Ok, that’s an exaggeration, but if there is one subject in which contestants are weak, it is chemistry. Even SSSF was weak in chemistry.

SCIENCE said:

plenty of knowledge decline resulting from actual beneficial progress when they decimated the imperialists, can’t complain

My Dad was in Seattle at Boeing when the SST (American Supersonic Transport) project was cancelled. He said the the Boeing engineers believed that if the project was restarted the following week the lost knowledge would take at least 6 months to recover.

KJW said:

As a person who enjoys watching quiz shows, one thing has become clear to me: nobody knows chemistry. Ok, that’s an exaggeration, but if there is one subject in which contestants are weak, it is chemistry. Even SSSF was weak in chemistry.

Yes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles
my reading^

“We see only a part but fancy that we have grasped the whole”