Is Science Progressive?

In order to answer the question: “is science progressive?” We must first define what “progressive” means and even what “science” means. The word “progressive” has two distinct meanings that will vastly alter the answer the this question. The first definition, the literal definition, is the quality of something that is consistently improved and progressed. The other definition, however, makes the question much more difficult to answer. The second definition of progressive, which is a connotational definition used more often by the public, is more a description of something’s tendency to move towards social reform, often in a liberal sense. The concept of science, perhaps by the public eye, may be easy to group into a single definition. However, science is truly defined as the systematic study of the world around us through experimentation and observation. By the first definition of progressive, the literal definition, science is undoubtedly progressive by nature, as the very purpose of it is to understand more about the natural and physical world so others may apply that knowledge to create new things and new ideas. Science is unquestionably progressive in this manner, as it is the very definition. However, is science progressive in the connotational definition? This is a question with a much more complicated answer.

Science is the name of the vast collections of fields in which the world is studied through observation and experimentation, though science is really much more than that. Science typically not only refers to study, observation, and experimentation, but also the applications of the knowledge obtained through those methods. This means that “science” refers to everything that is manufactured or created, from children’s toys, to make-up, to cars, to medical equipment, to nuclear bombs. Because the scope is so wide, it seems almost impossible to call science, as a whole, progressive or nonprogressive. New things are discovered through science normally due to a process known as the scientific method. This method is called by Thomas Kuhn: “normal science”. Normal science refers to study, experimentation, observation, creation, et cetera. However, Kuhn suggested that this is only a minor part of a much larger scientific process he called the Kuhn cycle. The Kuhn cycle starts with “normal science,” which is then applied to the world around it, and things that do not fit the paradigm (framework and knowledge base) of science are ignored or labeled as anomalies. As the anomalies become more prevalent and interesting, they are investigated further, this then leads to a “model crisis” or a complete breakdown of the scientific paradigm as things are discovered to work in a completely different manner than previously thought. The paradigm of science is then “shifted” or changed completely and re-written to explain these anomalies as well as everything that came before them. Only after this shift can the world of science return to conducting “normal science”. There are plenty of examples of this, one of which was Galileo’s theory of the earth revolving around the sun, rather than the other way around. This was a revolutionary theory that did not fit the paradigm of science at the time, that the sun and everything else revolved around the earth. However, with enough evidence and time, the scientific community was forced to accept the truth and shift the paradigm of science. These paradigm shifts, or scientific revolutions, are evidence that science does implement social reform in the way of changing how people think. This, in essence, is the very nature of progression: changing the way people see the world in order to better their understanding.

Sometimes science does not fit “progressive” ideals. The invention of the nuclear bomb, for example, is seen as very non-progressive, as it is designed for killing a large number of people and destroying a large area, which seems to be more regressive towards war and killing like animals. However, the discovery of nuclear energy, and the ability to control radioactive decay is one of the greatest scientific studies of all time, and the scientific discovery that lead to the atomic bomb is the very same discovery that could possibly mean carbon free, waste-minimal energy for the entire world, and a way to sustain the future. This being said, the discovery was made knowing that a bomb could be made. However, science cannot turn away knowledge for ignorance. In the scientific community, ignorance is not bliss, and there will always be two applications for a discovery. With the discovery of alcohol, there were those who drank it, those who powered lamps and furnaces with it, and those who committed arson with it. With the discovery of gunpowder, there were those who made fireworks, and those who made firearms. A regressive application of scientific discovery does not neutralize the positive applications. Take Plato’s cave allegory, for example. The men in the cave who saw nothing but shadows for years of their life are suddenly released into the world to discover color and the third dimension. It is possible that one of these men may become a criminal, but is is much more likely that they will not be, regardless, they will have learned and experienced a whole new world. The emotional area of knowledge will tell us something similar about the cave situation. Let’s say you were put in charge of the men staring at the shadows and had the ability to set them free. You know that there is a chance that they may become criminals, just as there is with everyone outside of the cave, but you know it is much more likely that they may not. You know that these men are missing out on a whole world that everyone should experience, and that they deserve to be set free and learn all that they can.

Those looking from the progressive point of view will always say that knowledge is more important, and will always choose to release the men from the cave rather than have them live a life of ignorance. This is the very idea behind science. Science believes that no one should live in ignorance, and everything in the world is waiting to be discovered. Science believes that the chance that something may be used regressively is no excuse to choose ignorance. Science believes in progression of society and public thinking, and that everyone should be set free to explore the world of knowledge that can await them outside the cave, and what they choose to do with that knowledge is their own choice. That is a truly progressive way of thinking.