Nina retake

Science is progressive, isn't it?

What makes something progressive? Progress is defined as the forward or onward movement toward a destination. But science isn't a destination, and neither is scientific knowledge; scientific knowledge is a pool of shared understanding about science. In science, progress isn't an onward movement to a set destination but onward movement to a larger pool of scientific knowledge. Progressive on the other hand is," happening or developing gradually or in stages; in most cases proceeding step by step". The word progressive is often a synonym to liberal, radical, even ahead of its time and innovative; most of the time an adjective that implies it is going to something better.  In science theories, ideas and paradigms change constantly giving it a dynamic nature. Paradigms are universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide and model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners; Paradigms can also be accepted theories and rules for which all of science is based upon. More often than not science’s dynamic nature tends towards a better understanding, and deeper comprehension of the already existing paradigms.

But before we can discuss if science is progressive, we must discuss what science is. Science is the study of naturally occurring phenomenon. Science must be falsifiable; falsifiability is a concept created by philosopher Karl Popper that says for a hypothesis to be credible it must be disprovable before it can be accepted as a scientific theory or as scientific knowledge. This concept allows humans to accept theories as true even though they are not completely correct. Because of the current technology it is impossible to prove something as completely accurate or correct but we can make premises and theories, which are true they just can’t be fully and completely true. Falsifiability applies to science as a whole, as science is the pool of shared and credible theories and knowledge that has accumulated over centuries to form what we see as science now, all the theories and understanding must be falsifiable in nature. Something to be part of the body of scientific knowledge it must follow the scientific method, the scientific method is the generator of scientific knowledge and hence a foundation for all of science. The scientific method uses reason as a way of knowing; making hypotheses, then testing the hypothesis empirically, then reasoning the relationship observed in the results to previous knowledge and the original question and procedure. The scientific method is used in different ways in natural sciences and in social sciences. The scientific method also greatly relies on induction, meaning using evidence obtained through the scientific method to come up with a theory or law that can be applied on a larger scale. The use of the scientific method can be easily observed in the natural, material and even in the humane sciences.

In biology the scientific method is used for testing of products and seeing the effects of independent variables on dependent variables. But the scientific method is not only applicable in physical research, a large part of the current scientific knowledge has used the scientific method in written research and observations, much like a psychologist would in the humane sciences. This is different from the science that is used in chemistry and physics were most if not all of the current knowledge was built on experimental data that followed the scientific method. Like previously explained the scientific method is a mix of deduction, induction and observations; it follows a cycle like the one depicted in picture below (1).

(1)

In many cases science is progressive, it proceeds in steps, take for example the periodic table. Fist created in by Dmitri Mendeleev in the late 1960s, the periodic table was mostly blank. At that point in time scientists had yet to uncover elements which we know of today. But as technology progressed and elements were discovered they were added to the periodic table. You can imagine the periodic table like a house, the foundation was laid first, this being the template created in the 1960s and then things were added in progression to achieve the final product, a fully constructed house with all the decorations. The periodic table was built in steps with each one based of what was previously there just like a paradigm is. Paradigms are also progressive but they do not move forward in a single path but in a cycle. The cycle in which they function is described in Kuhn's works. For Kuhn science progresses from normal science, the current problems is being solved; to model drift, when there is little to be solved; to model crisis, when your going no where; to revolution the discovery of new possible paradigms; to the final step of paradigm change, the community has reached an agreement on the new paradigm.

Paradigms change as new technologies become available; this is why a scientific fact has to be true at the given time with the tools available at that time. But this means as human develop new technologies that are more accurate, meaning they can perform measurements with more accuracy and precision, with less random error and hopefully less human error paradigms must be changed.  Currently the paradigm that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum stands true but if there was a new technology available tomorrow tat was able to disprove this accepted ‘fact’ then we would have to change the paradigm and anything that was built on it, just like the argument made about math in THE PROOF where wiles explained that if the theory was disproven all math that was based on it would crumble like a house of cards.

Science is founded on the principle that knowledge must be exchanged, if somebody discovers that the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum but did not share that claim then this claim can never be part of the body of scientific knowledge. This exchange is important because others must know of this knowledge and others must test it before it can be part of the shared knowledge, be included in the current paradigm and can become a base for other theories and facts.

One-way which we can explore the concept of progress in science is by looking at progression on the smaller scale of evolution taught is within the current scientific paradigm.  Before evolution even became a theory, creationism was the accepted fact on how humans and all living beings came to be on earth. As time passed and people started uncovering facts there was a paradigm shift to the theory of evolution, this theory became wide spread after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. This was published during a time where creationism was still the widely accepted fact and contradicting the churches beliefs could lead to accusations of hearsay. The idea behind evolution, which now is a fact, is that all living organisms evolved form the simplest life form to what we see of today and that evolution can occur gradually (follows gradualism), or it can happen suddenly and quickly at a period of time (follows the idea of punctuated equilibrium).  In the aspect of evolution there is little doubt that it is something progressive as evolution in itself is a form of progress.

No if we were to compare the progress, which can be observed in biological evolution to that of a cultural evolution, we can see the difference. Take for example an uncontacted tribe living in the amazon, there is an estimate of over 67 uncontacted peoples just within Brazilian borders, we can see a difference. But it is hard to fully agree that there is less progress or that what they do not change because they are cultures that western society has yet to touch and fully research and the moment that we do begin to research the tribe we induce change in the community. Another problem is that their science is so vastly different form the science that we as westerners know. If you remember the Wade Davis’ ted talk We dream of endangered cultures you remember the claim that was made of the tribe of Indians that said they could hear the plants sing and that depending in the moon that they sang in a different key. In western society that is not considered science as you can not test of go into someone head and hear what they hear but to the tribe that is capable of doing that it is science, it helps them choose between poisonous food and safe one. It is something that has been proven to work for that tribe and it is a whole community that shares this specific knowledge but it just doesn’t follow the current paradigms that exist for science. So is it science? And had this ability changed in the past years?

If exploring cultural evolution it is also important to consider the emic nature of cultural research and because the people studying these communities were not born into them then it is hard to make a concrete claim on what can and cannot be done by the people in the culture.  Another problem that comes up during the study of culture is that because researchers have schemas and can never be completely objective it is hard for them to perceive what has changed because it could be minute but even that is still progress.

I think that when we are considering the question is science progressive it is important to consider how we are evaluating the terms science and progress. To me science must have two of the three fundamental ideas described in the second paragraph and progress must be something that moves forward with a more positive result with every step. But because the places where it would be possible to explore progress and non-progressing science are so hard to understand and research it is impossible to come to a concrete answer to the question. I think that the ideas within the current paradigm certainty are progressive but the others are hard to give a concrete answer as they are either outside the paradigm or they are impossible to study without inducing progress.