The end of science

One of the challenges faces contemporary science is that not all, or even most, scientific theories or discoveries are especially exciting or interesting–unless you're a scientist. Historically, science has had two motivations: (i) to improve the quality of life through technology and medicine; (ii) to satisfy our curiosity about how the world works.

Traditionally, science operated under the assumption that nature is mysterious to the degree that we don't understand nature. The aim of science was to demystify nature. Once you understand natural causes and effects, or what things are made of, everything is clear. By unraveling the mysteries of nature, nature becomes transparent to reason. For instance, that was the effect of Newtonian physics. 

But Relativity and quantum mechanics had the opposite effect. To the extent that these two theories are at least approximately true, nature becomes even more mysterious, or more inexplicable, than before we peeled the layers back. The more we understand it, the less understandable it is. We discover that nature is inherently baffling. That's because quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity have such counterintuitive implications, viz. the Twin paradox, EPR paradox, Schrödinger's cat, the double-slit experiment, &c. 

There was nothing unexpected about Newtonian physics. Nothing very surprising. By contrast, quantum mechanics and Relativity are deeply puzzling or revolutionary. We thought we had a more straightforward understanding of time and space before these scientific theories. The end-result is not to demystify nature, but to mystify nature. 

This is also what makes them interesting theories. More interesting than Newtonian physics.

This is intensified by the fact that they deal with fundamental features of human experience: time and space. If you propose a counterintuitive theory of time or space, that's fascinating. That turns our world upside down (as it were). 

Some scientific discoveries, even if they are scientifically significant, are less captivating than other scientific discoveries. The space probes to Mars and Venus were more enthralling than the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle–unless you're a particle physicist. For the first time we got a ground-level view of other planets.  

A challenge facing contemporary science is whether the most interesting theories and discoveries now lie in the past. Does future science consist of filling in gaps, refining established theories, and improving technology?