Is Science Progressive?

“Is science progressive?” before answering this question we first have to truly understand what it is asking.  According to the oxford dictionary the definition of progressive is the happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.  Meaning that science is the ongoing discoveries of a certain topic. AS stated by Popper’s theory on the universal generalization, in which there is no certain determination of the truth. Popper explains this using the example that if there is a single black swan out of millions of white ones, then the statement of “all swans are white” is invalid. So to say that anything is a fact in science is blatantly wrong, this is why scientists refer to any concept as theories. For example the topic in evolution may seem very controversial, especially for someone with a religious background like myself. At a young age was first taught the basics of the bible and how god is the creator of the world. However later on I n school I have been also taught otherwise. Hence comes the two extreme sides of the argument of the validity of evolution. While some state that evolution is a fact, the church has taught me to discard this argument and question it as just being a theory. Scientists have agreed to call it a theory; none the less there is still constant argument that it is indeed a fact. The TOK book argues that there is a certain misunderstanding raised from the gap in scientific and general language. The book explains that the two linguistic styles may vary in definition.  While people may feel that evolution is not a theory, as it is understood as a hunch or speculations, scientists use it as a “specific understanding.” This means that evolution is in fact a theory.

Even though the book describes both sides as complementing the other, this still raises the question of which side to choose, and this is way many people have started to refer themselves as agnostic, meaning they can believe in evolution while at the same time accepting the possibility of there being a superior being. This puts me in a stop of confusion, in which I completely agree with what is taught in school but at the same time does not stop me from praying very night.

The way science is built is thru methods, however the book explains that no two areas of science work the same way and there is not actual fixed scientific method to follow. The ability if share knowledge is what defines natural sciences, in the sense that a multitude of scientists from different are contribute with their strengths to “collective enterprise.” This shared knowledge is used in the ways of knowing which play a big role in distinguishing the methodology used in everyday thinking to the natural science. The Kuhn cycle (Thomas Kuhn) has the role of describing this methodology of scientific discovery in which helps the progression of science.  Paradigms are the patterns or a framework of concepts which lead to a bigger theory.  If there is a new discovery made in a field of study the Kuhn cycle is used to re model the theory according to the new set of rules or laws (paradigm). Another scientists around the same time as Kuhn had similar ideas in the process of the progression of science. As described by physicist Richard Freyman in a lecture from Cornell University, 1964: in the process of a discovery we first have to hypothesizes or make a guess. Then later compute the consequences if this were to be true. We then see if it applies to nature, and based on experiments we can see to what degree this statement is correct or wrong. If it is wrong the whole process repeats itself.

On the other hand we can look at a different methodology into science which is the knowledge of indigenous people.  Here we have a whole different section of knowledge which implies economic, political, and mathematical among others. Indigenous thinking consists of the idea of holistic knowledge which puts humans as part of the world like any other animal not superior beings or observers. Somewhat like the natural sciences it is believed in the interconnection of all beings in the world, however it views the world as being alive so that lands and geographical landscape is conscious and that animals are closely related to humans. Making it so that Indigenous people understand their own historical and biological background.  Indigenous knowledge decontextualizes natural rules regarded biomes or season in order to create unifying laws that can be applied else were then that specific area, meaning the strong categorical perception that groups have. This categorical perception however is very similar to the ones in the natural sciences because of the similar methodology used. Like the natural sciences, indigenous knowledge generalizes in order to be able to classify names and draw correlations between natural phenomenon. And seen by the Himba tribe which do have a categorization system of colors, even though it is far different from ours, it has the same porpoise and works according to their culture. Western scientists use biology and chemistry to extract certain parts of plants for the use of medicine, the same happens with the biological recognition from native groups that can use their local knowledge of the proper cultivation and the location in which these plants grown in.

Science is an ongoing process of new discoveries and elimination of other theorems. I don’t think that it will ever get to a point of full understanding of knowledge which leaves many questions beyond what we currently know. Science believes in the global shared knowledge for the discovery of what is already there in the first place. Science is absolutely not exclusive to one correct idea, rather many that together are able to form a bigger frame work.  There will never be a regression of science; if anything is proven wrong it will just shape us all to understanding how the world really works. Science is indeed progressive.