I think this is a super interesting question, and definitely one that is relevant to our lives as students in this class. I think that another consideration for education is how the material is taught. Some of my best classes have been experiment based, where we would replicate the studies that other scientists went through. So even though we were "learning" what was already known, we were able to experience the scientific method ourselves.

I think this is a super interesting question, because advancements in technology have always changed the way research is performed in other fields. Without technology to perform calculation and validate predictions, there is no way to further advance research, since these predictions are simply speculations. So I'd say that, generally, without an advancement in technology that enables better measurements or calculations, the research in earthquakes will probably lull, as you mentioned in the field of particle physics.

Similar to Daniel, I think the most illuminating part of this article for non-quantitatively-inclined readers is the discussion comparing low-uncertainty experiences and high-uncertainty experiences in our lives. This comparison of events that we can relate to, allows us as readers to imagine our decision-making in these situations. Thus, we are able to evaluate the way we actions we make in our lives, and the way in which uncertainty affects them.

Hi Vincent, I think your question is really fantastic. However, I do believe that scientists may also pay attention to signals that are similar range to the ones we regularly see, and not just those with a large deviation. In the same way that we have developed specific methods for encoding information in these signals, if other intelligent life did exist, then there is a possibility that they would form similar methods for encoding information in signals. But, I agree that this search may prove extremely difficult, as interpreting extraterrestrial communication may often prove to be looking for signal within noise.

I think this is a great question Oswaldo! However, I would think that the way we measure the uncertainty of these information is generally easy to see. It is much easier to measure the uncertainty of a physical measurement than it is to measure the uncertainty of a prediction, due to the compounding errors that can occur in a complex prediction. But, I guess in the case of a human-related measurement, uncertainty is abundant.

Similarly, over half of the US population below 50 years old has the oral herpes virus, although it may lay dormant. I wonder how many of these types of dormant infections exist, and if there's a difference for viral and bacterial diseases?

Interesting question Andrew; I'd agree that it is difficult to predict the impact of innovations before they even occur. For example, thinking about the development of the atomic bomb, scientists weren't sure exactly how powerful it would be, and the effect it would have on international military relations. As we discussed unknown unknowns in class, maybe the effect of these innovations could be considered unknown unknowns, and thus we would only have a general idea of what they could be.