Is Science Progressive? - Pedro Salles Leite

 Is Science Progressive?

How do we know things? There is a range of methods for inquiry across the subject matters, the areas of knowledge (AOK). Through the established knowledge framework (using shared knowledge), the components of each area are defined. Among the AOK, natural sciences are fundamental to discover laws of nature and the world (as we classify it) we live in. Through observation and testing, scientists have long explored this AOK and throughout the centuries, left people to question if science did progress. First of all, to answer this question, progress needs to be defined. According to the Oxford dictionary, one of the definitions of ‘progressive’ is “Happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.” However, once we define progression, “developing” also needs to be defined. ‘Develop’, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “Grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.” Finally, we need to identify towards what progression is being measured. Science gradually matures, advances, and becomes more elaborate in its own knowledge framework, but for everything outside of this framework, this may not always be true.

Ever since scientific theories have been created, they have also changed.  Thomas Kahn is one of the most famous for analyzing these changes. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn argues that science does not progress step-by-step, but instead, in a dynamic process with spurts of changes. A paradigm, which is an accepted theory, is usually the framework scientists use to work in normal science. In normal science, discoveries are made but they are considered smaller progression steps. For example, the periodic tables of elements already anticipated new elements were still to be discovered so when scientists discovered them, it was a progression in science. According to Kuhn, when scientists go out of the established paradigm and create a theory that re-conceptualizes the previous conceived knowledge, it is considered a “scientific revolution”.

Even though it is progress, scientists themselves try to resists new paradigms due to the fact that they require them to rethink their knowledge. Since science is shared knowledge, scientists work together in research and share their findings with the larger scientific community, to check their reasoning and test the validity of their claim. Throughout history, the scientific community established (through the use of shared knowledge) methods to determine if a theory will be accepted. The acceptance of a theory results in progression, according to our established definitions. Therefore, for this to happen, results go into “the zone of exchange”, where personal knowledge with other scientists worldwide. Through established channels communication, such as peer-reviewed journals and pre-publication servers, scientists get feedback on their work. This itself is already progress, even if the work comes to be considered invalid. By knowing that the method/technique used by the scientist is flawed, the knowledge framework of science becomes more mature and therefore is considered to be a progression in science.

Knowledge exchange is the fundamental of progression. There are many methods of testing new ideas that will be incorporated into science’s shared bank of knowledge, either as an idea that doesn’t work or as a new concept that could be a “scientific revolution”.  Falsifiability, as defined by philosopher Karl Popper, is the testability of a scientific hypothesis. According to Popper, if a theory is not falsifiable, it is unscientific and will therefore be considered pseudo-science. Therefore, if a knowledge claim is not falsifiable, can it still be considered a progress in the knowledge framework of science? Many branches of applied science, such as sociology, have no potential for falsification and therefore would not be considered to advance science. Hence, falsifiability can’t be the only factor to determine if a theory will be added to the knowledge framework. The applied sciences add knowledge to the framework so therefore can be considered progression. 

As new paradigms are discovered and science’s knowledge framework is progressed, other areas of knowledge are affected by it. Indigenous knowledge, for example, can clash with science when new paradigms are created. Indigenous communities have a rich, culture-specific, holistic, locally bound, non-formal and orally transmitted bank of shared knowledge. When western science exchanges a theory with traditional native knowledge, there has to be an established “zone of exchange”. Therefore, many of the discoveries made by western society will not be considered a progress when seen by the indigenous culture, because it cannot be transmitted through shared knowledge. For example, theories that are explained by hypothesis falsification, global verification, and quantitative written records is not valid for their culture and through their schema, will not be considered an advancement. Hence, there are many aspects of science that do not progress in the indigenous knowledge framework.

A real life situation that challenges the concept of science being progressive is the atomic bomb. Even though in science’s knowledge framework the discovery of rapid release of nuclear energy by fission of an atom’s nucleus can certainly be considered progress according to our definition but when we look at it from outside of the knowledge framework of science, the word ‘progress’ may be inaccurate. Media often headlines the social issues that this discovery are causing, among the many wars that killed multitudes as well as accidents to power-plants that made entire living zones inhabitable. Therefore, according to our definition of progression, science is not progressive when seen by this framework because it didn’t bring advancement to society.

Science progresses because of the Ways of Knowing (WoK) used by the scientists. They use their sense perception to perceive the world around them, along with their imagination, intuition, reasoning, and emotion to create new theories. Through deductive reasoning, scientists can make generalizations and form a hypothesis. Science progresses in the sense that it is not perfect. When scientists create a hypothesis “all swans all white” with a million white swans as evidence, it is considered progression. If one black swan is found though, and the theory needs to be modified, science also progressed within its knowledge framework. Through observation, meticulously done using sense perception, the basics of science are established.

When analyzing progression, it is clear that science gradually matures, advances, and becomes more elaborate in its own knowledge framework. However, when looking at the atomic bomb and indigenous knowledge, among the many other perceptions outside of the science framework, it also becomes clear that progression is not universal and needs to be measured towards something.  It’s not possible to achieve perfect results in science and this justifies why science is constantly progressing. The “uncertainty” in science indicates there is still more needed to advance its knowledge framework.