Is Science Progressive?

Is Science Progressive?

It was Carl Sagan, an American scientist, who once said: "At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes–an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new." While this is certainly a charming philosophy, one has to ask how much truth there is to it.  How can one determine the openness of a subject as vast as science to new ideas? Is it progressive? ––It's important to point out that this essay will be using progress in the terms of "happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step." and "favoring or promoting change or innovation." All these definitions are supplied by Oxford Dictionary, which it itself offers limitations that will be addressed within this essay later on.

How open science is to new ideas can be seen by is method of determining whether something is valid or not. This is what defines the degree to which a new idea is considered to fit the paradigm of science. In science, a paradigm is a convention that used to test out theories, a boundary of what is a scientific question or observation. This could be limiting to the expansion of knowledge if it wasn't for the fact that it remains subject to change.

The physicist Thomas Kuhn believed there were two cycles in science (with steps in between): normal science and revolutionary science. Normal science is regarded as the period in which theory predicts discoveries, but since the theory already existed, it is not “new” information. These theories do not change any paradigms. However, when an an anomaly rises –a question outside of the paradigm– so commences discovery, which Kuhn writes, "is a symptom of something askew in the image of science." (54) What follows is a crisis where the original paradigm collapses, as whatever new variable emerged has changed fields that had already existed. This way science is not necessarily cumulative as not all hypothesis can co-exist in the same paradigm. The change of a paradigm, while still met with resistance, is the last phase in which new rules are created to accommodate for the new discovery. In this sense, science is progressive. It allows for change and innovation. For if for a fact to be scientific it must within the paradigm of science, the adaptability and flexibility of said paradigm is surely an indication that science is partially progressive.

The next question, then, would be to ask what makes a discovery valid, worthy of including in the paradigm of science, whether it causes change or not. Karl R. Popper wished to solve the problem of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience, or as he said, the difference between astronomy and astrology, between Marxism and Newton's Theory: "It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements –whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific." (Conjectures and Refutations 1963) Popper states that the criterion of a theory is its "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.", which goes hand in hand with the way we establish scientific laws: scientists make generalizations that are based on extensive evidence with no falsifying instances.

This then leads us to ask the question: how does one "falsify" a theory? What's made science differ from areas of knowledge is the change of subject matter, which leaves behind all the complexities and challenges of the human mind and behaviour and relies on methods of observation. It's one of science's pillar ways of knowing: observation is the basis of science. It disregards intangible things such as intuition, the gut feeling we feel in a situation.

So far, we understand that science exists within its own paradigm which without it, it would not be science but something else. The paradigm is adaptable, able to change when new ideas emerge that do not fit the schema but hold undeniable truth. Sidenote: within science, truth becomes provisional truth,  based on results that are coherent with other findings alongside the acknowledgement there is never enough evidence to be 100% sure. Determining the scientific validity of a statement stems from the ability to falsify to, to test it.  It all seems rather straightforward. Except, we are trying to determine how progressive is science and there is one way of knowing, one key idea, missing to get closer to finishing this puzzle. Earlier, it was claimed that observation is the basis of science. At the risk of sounding flippant, it is not that observation is not a vital part of the subject area but the true basis of science is the missing piece of this puzzle: shared knowledge.

The scientific paradigm, that will change when an idea arises that revolutionizes it, is based on shared knowledge. The language which we use to communicate ideas and concepts within science is based on shared knowledge. The equation for enthalpy will always be q=mc∆T (heat = mass x constant x change in temperature) whether it be in english or in mandarin. The proper methods of testing theories are based on shared knowledge. A scientist would not propose that God exists based on his intuition because as a community, both God and intuition have been ruled as unfounded theories with no scientific way of proving either. So the natural question would be: what does the role of shared knowledge play in the level of progressiveness of science? Inevitably, what ultimately defines something as science is the consent of a community that has set certain parameters and standards for what defines the subject area. While some might call this limiting, without this, what would science be but random individuals making individual claims.

So far, we've yet to discuss the question, "is science progressive?" through an ethical lense. The bioethicist, David B. Resnik, defines ethics as the "norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior." Broader than law, it's a way to behave as a scientists that will ensure honesty and trust within such a subject. There are countless of violations of ethics, even from powerful authorities such as the government. For example: Porton Down, a series of experiments ran in the 1940s-60s by the UK government and military. Participants were led to believe they were being tested to procure a cure for the common cold where in reality, they were exposed to hazardous chemicals such as LSD, mustard gas, sarin and so on. This is considered a violation of ethics, as it was based on exploitation and non-consent. Yet, what does this have to do with progressiveness? Well, with the surge of technology, especially internet, the scientific community has become much greater and beyond that, now reaches a wider audience in terms of scientific conclusions and predictions. Along with it, the issue of ethics in science have increased exponentially for now the scientific community is being held accountable by more than scientists; they are held accountable by the public. This means that the concept of animal rights and human rights when it comes to testing and such are now a much more discussed topic than before.

However, animal testing is still prevalent. According to the non-profit Do Something website, over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in US labs every year –and what's worse is that 92% of the experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous. There are plenty of reasons why animal testing is not necessarily needed: humans and animals don't always react the same and animal testing cannot show all the potential uses of a drug. Planet Science tells us that research using animal testing was recently investigated in the United States and it was found that most trials had high scientific value but low medical benefit. In this sense, science, for the most part, fails to be progressive as despite animal testing not proving to be that beneficial, it continues to torture and kill animals every year.

On the subject of new ideas, it must be noted that until now, this essay has solely dealt with Western science. What happens if we cross over into a different culture, to indigenous tribes? It seems at first that these two cultures are the opposite. Natural sciences are based on decontextualizing and depersonalizing knowledge, while indigenous knowledge is holistic, seeing themselves as part of the processes of this world rather than observers.  Yet, at a closer look, there is far more shared between the two than initially assumed.

The growing awareness of ecological systems and complexities of living systems within Western science matches the traditional respect for all things mentality of indigenous tribes. Both base their science on empirical observation in natural settings, on pattern recognition and verification through repetition. They both share similar organizing principles, where their body of knowledge is stable but flexible. It's argued that the reason we perceive a difference between the sciences of the two cultures is because of the scale. A Western scientist might isolate a specific medicinal compound from plants grown in a laboratory, using her knowledge of biology and chemistry. Certain indigenous people might know which plant is the best for medicinal purpose by the specific location or harvested in a certain way. 'Both construct knowledge using fundamentally the same ways of knowing, but at different scales.' Western science however, refuses to acknowledge indigenous knowledge as valid science, despite having similar methods and similar conclusions. This is where science limits itself and demonstrates a lack of progressiveness.

We've seen that in Western science, the paradigm of science, the boundary of what is and what isn't science, is open to change as evident by Kuhn's cycles theory. Yet, the way something is proved to be science or not remains a conflicting answer for our question. On one hand, science is based on observation and on shared knowledge. A way of combining those two is through Popper's method of determining whether something is a scientific theory or not. Yet, who's to say indigenous knowledge does not hold as much truth, despite being untestable? Having mentioned ethics, or the lack thereof, indigenous knowledge could help reinforce proper morals within science as it's based on respect for all things. It also focuses on communicating proper behaviour and values through metaphors and stories. This could mean a huge step forward for science in terms of sustainability and taking care of our earth. Science's inability to incorporate these values and this way of thinking shows that while it remains open to new 'scientific ideas', it has failed to keep up with the more morally complex times.