Quote Originally Posted by Quizatzhaderac View Post
One of the ways I'd define "scientific progress" is that certain questions become settled. Yes, each answer raises two new questions, but those questions aren't equal to the first one, they're harder to answer and less important. Like partially filling a hole so there are two gaps on the sides; yes you have a larger number holes, but you have less hole.

Eventually, we will reach limits. The next experiment will expensive. The knowledge gained too niche. As others have said, this won't happen in our lives.

When the next dark age comes(assuming we're not completely wiped out) we'll go through it knowing much more that we did in the last dark age, and probably more than we do now.
There is a false assumption here that there is nothing fundamentally new to discover - that there will be no paradigm shift like, for example, with quantum physics. That false assumption is manifested in the more specific assumption that the hole we fill is finite and that any answer we get covers some significant portion thereof.

Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
I recall, and Im not sure if this anecdote is true, but I recall hearing an anecdote about how during the decade or so before quantum physics and relativity were discovered the concensus was that physics had been more or less completely solved. And then of course relativity and quantum weirdness were discovered and uended everything
That was indeed the notion back than with just a few small problems waiting to be solved: black body radiation and some mathematical issues with emergence of magnetic monopoles in Maxwell's electrodynamics.

The same thing happened in chemistry, where it was believed that almost everything was already researched except the goopy (not the word they used for sure) stuff -> all of organic chemistry. And even in the inorganic chemistry there are still amazing things happening.