Is Science Progressive?

Is science progressive? This question is a very straightforward question but very broad too. To be able to answer this question thoroughly it is important to determine first what science is. According to Oxford dictionary, science is: “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” This definition that the dictionary gives us is very good but it includes too many things. Science is also known as the current accepted paradigm derived from observation and experiment. So basically you could say it’s the currently accepted “model”.

To be able to respond this question we need to set boundaries for this definition based on other universal definitions of science and further knowledge. According to Richard Feynman, the key to science is that if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. So basically, it doesn’t matter if Einstein says something is science, if it doesn’t agree with nature, even if it’s in only one occasion, it is not science. Another boundary for science, according to Popper is that it needs to be falsifiable, not to be confused with it having to be falsified already. For example, we believe in evolution because everything we know today agrees with the theory of evolution but if tomorrow something occurred in nature that would contradict this theory, it would not be considered science anymore. Even though these definitions used are correct and universally accepted, this is not the only way one can determine what science is. However, to answer the question you need to approach it in a single way because looking at what science is from every perspective would give us too many possible paths to follow.

The next thing we need to determine to answer this question is: what do we mean by progressive? According to Oxford dictionary: “Happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.” Using this definition, we can take two different approaches to how science is progressive. The two different paths that we can take are viewing science as progressive while a single idea develops or we can see it as science being progressive as a whole.

The way a single idea develops in science could be considered progressive, for example when developing new medication, there is a rigorous step-by-step procedure that is followed until the medication is approved. This could be considered progressive. The method that is used in the development of this specific medication is progressive. If at some point it proves to be inefficient, this medication would not be considered progressive, as it no longer develops. Nevertheless, the process was.

Thinking of science as a whole being progressive we can look at what Thomas Kuhn has to say. According to Thomas Kuhn, science is not progressive; he introduced the idea of a “paradigm shift”. He argues that science is not progressive in the sense that it does not follow a “step by step” “in a straight line” path. Instead, that line breaks and the stairway continues in a different direction, showing a different path that would have never been found if it wasn’t for this “line breakage”. This stairway also sheds light on vital information that helps for future knowledge, deeper understanding and correcting of previous knowledge. Basically what Kuhn is trying to say, using the previous example of evolution is that something can happen that disproves this theory and will completely change our perception of evolution. Everything we thought we know is wrong, moreover, every assumption or theory derived from the theory of evolution is wrong too. Thomas Kuhn argues that science does not proceed, but breaks and restarts.

Another way to answer this question is by changing the meaning of progressive to: “making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.” Using this definition of progressive takes us to greyer areas and allows us to dive into areas of knowledge like history and ethics. It is hard to say in some particular cases if science is progressive or not. Taking medicine, which is a big area of science, there are various times in history where the science itself has been progressive, leading to progress toward better conditions. But the question is… Was it actually progressive considering ethics and history? In the past, in Nazi Germany, Nazi doctors would execute cruel and inhumane experiments on Jewish individuals. Surely, this is not progressive because it did not employ or advocate any more enlightened ideas, more than anything they would be regressive ideas going back to discrimination. Jews died and suffered for very long, they were treated like animals; but in the end of the day vital discoveries of specific conditions were found. Discoveries that maybe could of killed and made more people suffer compared to those experimented on. (This doesn’t make up for the suffering and pain). Considering this I don’t think science is progressive but we have to take into account that what the Nazis’ makes a very small part of science.

Another way to answer this question is using emotion. Another unethical example of “progressiveness in science” is animal testing. I was arguing about it with my classmates and some of them thought that it is wrong and regressive to experiment harshly on animals such as chimpanzees but animals like grasshoppers are ok to experiment on. They argued that grasshoppers have a much less developed brain and don’t have feelings (be it sadness or pain). They argued that chimpanzees have very developed brains, which I don’t deny, and that is why it is not ok; because they suffer. Others argued that testing on lab mice (which are apparently genetically modified to not feel pain) is acceptable. I think it is unethical and it is exploiting these mice. Nevertheless, maybe it is morally unethical and socially unethical but in the “scientist world” this is accepted, it is their job. But then again is this progressive or regressive? What these scientists achieve from this experimentation is progressive, but the way they achieve it is regressive.

The question: “Is science progressive?” Can be answered from hundreds of different ways. They way I answered it, really does not lead to a yes or no answer. It depends on what aspects you find more important within science and what you are considering as progressive. The outcome of science or the method used to achieve this outcome. Some could argue that science is like a Sudoku, you can think everything is right until you get to a certain spot where the only number you have left doesn’t fit; you have to start all over again. Others argue that it is progressive as it leads to better conditions in general. And to achieve results you use the scientific method, which is progressive. I think that to have a better understanding and deeper answer for this question we would have to analyse to what extent science is progressive in a specific aspect.