what is a thought composed of? An observation.
We are still observing, as we did at any point in civilization and our broader existence. However, we have observed virtually all phenomena in our current surroundings: The growth of a tree, animals, behaviours and so on. We have observed a lot and documented even more,
I don't think we're becoming ignorant as a result, I'd say ignorant has always been there. However, our information is becoming more categorical but that's because we've moved from foundational thought which I'd define as concepts that are immediately deducible from observation, like an apple falling from a tree, to complex thought: It isn't just dropping, there is gravitational forces, friction, differentials in acceleration, wind pressure and so on. As you said, this disables the role of foundational thought in our understanding but I think we're finding true information.
A quote I use quite often which reflects on this idea:
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow: he who would search for pearls must dive below."
Once you find the foundation or principles of a system you can start to work your way into the complexities of that system. For example, the 4 constant forces explain much of the universe to us in a fundamental, axiomatic way. We know repulsion occurs between forces that are magnetized, we know attraction occurs due to gravity, etc.
Likewise, the concept of thinking is a result of not understanding: That is I observe a phenomena and think why it occurs. Let's take consciousness: We thought it was in the heart, the brain, the stomach, it was incorporeal. We thought the mind was separate from the body and such. Yet after many thinkers over the course of civilization, we've sifted through the ideas that don't seem logical. How could the stomach be the center of thought if people have been stabbed in the belly but suffer no immediate cognitive problems?
Thought is a prerequisite to knowledge. Let's say this was prehistoric times: I think the soul resides within my eyes. Since claims aren't precedented on a work of knowledge I say the soul resides within my eyes because that is how I see. You say you think it resides in the stomach because hunger is the most persistent sensation. The next day you decide the heart because it always beats, and the beating hearts of dead men do not exist. A few weeks later we change our minds and say it resides within the feet, as elderly man die in their beds after they cannot walk themselves: As our "knowledge" is no more than guesses, we can state anything with the probability that it is true.
I think we've accumulated a lot of knowledge, and repeated these observations a million times it's the only consistent option. If I throw a ball in the air it will drop, provided I can observe if there's a condition that would prevent it from dropping. It is true in absolute skepticism that I can't be assured it won't fly into space the next time because past =/= future, but it's the only basis we have to go on. It's more of a proof really: Any scientific theory worth a grain of salt has a lot of proofs related to it and if that isn't the case, someone comes along and entirely dissects the research. So there's always a constant battle of falsification: Sure the average person will blindly follow science because for the most part they don't care, and if A causes B that's enough for them. But true scientists (not playing no scotsman here), but the actual scientists would only use data that's reliable and testable, mainly to prevent embarrassment, increase probability within the research scope and actually provide an incremental change in the knowledge base.
I would say we'll actually need a higher IQ for conceptual understanding, such as theoretical understanding of quantum mechanics, concepts in physics and such that aren't intuitive by nature. I'd say we'll have a decline in the next 10,000 years in spatial awareness namely because we don't scan our physical environment as much with our cybernetic companion: the mobile. We'll probably grow bigger brains to process all the information we're accumulating that isn't from the visual cortex, like kids reading massive books at the age of 6 which wasn't a phenomena 200 years ago or so. The education system is teaching kids a lot about the world and in a much broader spectrum (Geography, sciences, religion, english, math and whatever have you)
Basically:
I think there is less to think about that isn't dependent on knowledge that's been proven over 100s of years. Due to this, one cannot think without knowledge propositions, hence why philosophy has stagnated in influence as something of a spinning thread to form independent subjects based on observable axioms. Society has became way too complex for someone's opinion to be valid just because they thought of it, in contrast to fields that have had 1000s of contributing members, all stifflers for each other's work.
It's about operations too: With society becoming increasing complex we have to forget about the pillars they're predicated on. You can be assured they'll not go away entirely but people won't reason from first principles because it's exhausting. There are people that will however, and if there is a flaw I'm sure they'll identify it. I think most of the science that's proven wrong is actually knowledge that hasn't been around for 100s of years, like the effect of eggs on health: nutrition is more fleshed out but it's went through a lot of hurdles mainly associating x with y and using correlative measures. Eggs are bad because of cholesterol, they increase blood pressure. Well now we understand dietary cholesterol makes up for a small amount of cholesterol in the blood which is what drives blood pressure in the first place.
The best example I can give of the importance is thought is probably your boy einstein completely dismantling classical physics and replacing the model with gravity. At the time classical physics was around 100 years old.
There's less to discover in our immediate surroundings, and therefore less to think about that hasn't already been recorded. When I think of hot topics a a teenager the themes that people thought about were ones that weren't defined, mainly because one kid couldn't dismantle the field of science with merely a random thought. The questions were "What is space?" "If a tree drops in a forest.... doth it make a sound?"
"Do we see different colours, is my blue your tango?" "What is consciousness?" We're still thinking but maybe in an advanced level. I mean these experts in their field dedicated a lot of time, effort and sweat into their work, not that it inherently matters but the fact checking along with the analytical minds of people who are so obsessed with truths and consistently that finally a theory emerged as a precedent for knowledge claims.
It's hard to think of an original idea because of the amount of people that have lived in the last 1000 years alone, the amount of inventions, abstractions and the like that have changed over the years. 8 billion are so living right now, and evidently there is a limit to A) The environment we're exposed to (the earth) B) Patterns of thought (Logical induction/deduction, chained reasoning, first principles, emotional etc ).
A completely unique idea, that you can't describe in other ways.
If we look at the past we could say that a big flaw with civilization was actually disorder and the lack of consistency: people could debate anything, with anyone without the need for factual proof. Anecdotes and persuasion was key. Now not so much, if someone gives you a bogus statistic it can be checked using google along with so many other things. If someone says "what if cells don't exist?" Well, you could give a buttload of evidence that infer the existence of an entity that has cellular functions, which of course would be a cell.
When we come to assumptions in science I see it mostly inferred by people that have just brushed on the topic rather than understanding the core principles. While the people that produced the paper had to have known the inner principles for it to be peer reviewed, acknowledge by other academics, incorporated into some technological function in a corporate and government, which is then used in wider society. This chain is a process of acceptance, rarely by virtue of following the crowd but fundamentally for practicality, reliability, validity and consistency. Those are the four pillars of the modern world and everything we claim to be true, within degrees of freedom.
The people that read the media instead of the science are ones that behold science as fact, mainly because they're lazy and just want to know how to get from A to B, rather than why it occurs. The media exaggerates "science" in so many ways just to get a click, I can imagine the reason they use "science is wrong" is also to get a click because people would prefer themselves to be right than y'know, a field which lots of people have contributed their lives to.
PS: Remember the pact yo.
