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.