Is Science Progressive?

Is Science Progressive?

In order to answer the question, is science progressive, a definition needs to be established for progress. There are many types of progress in science such as; economical, social, professional, educational, methodical and cognitive. All of these aspects of scientific progress may include distinct thoughts. In this essay I will focus on cognitive progress, in other words, increase or advancement of scientific knowledge. In order to say that something progressed their needs to be an improvement in knowledge towards achieving a more complete or modern condition of the truth. Progress will also have a connotational sense, since it will be viewed as social progress, more specifically, if it is bringing improvements to the society and the people that inhabit it. Science will be regarded most of the times as natural sciences, defined by Merriam- Webster dictionary as a “branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence”. Is science always going towards the ultimate truth? Many scientists have been disproved, since new, more accurate theories to describe the natural world were created. However, without the falsifiable theory, the new better theory would not emerge. Science is cognitively progressive, since new better theories come from old worst ones, however it is important to distinguish the relevant degree of truthlikeness in each theory in order to see if progress is in fact evident. On the other hand, cognitive progression can lead to social implications in the perception of some, since with new scientific inventions and discoveries society may be harmed, due to the incorrect way of using knowledge.

Ways of knowing such as sense perception and reasoning are fundamental in order for science to achieve progress. Both combine to provide evidence, which is the major justification for accepting knowledge claims. Scientists will replicate observations made by other scientists, which will expose experimental errors and the confirmation bias of interpreting results in terms of expectations. Scientists use reasoning to check for truth. They look for results that are coherent with others findings, treating it pragmatically and doing correspondence checks. Correspondence checks is the type of check that makes natural sciences reliable for representing the world, and yet open for change. It is not possible to achieve complete certainty, therefore scientists work with provisional truth, or in other words the best truth for that time. Language is definitely connected with these two other ways of knowing, since it is through language that findings are expressed, opening up room for change. In the scientific community language needs to have little ambiguity and be very denotative, having its literal direct meaning. In order to construct a provisional truth (theory) the hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. One of the principles of natural sciences is that scientific hypothesis must be inherently falsifiable, meaning it needs to be disprovable before it can become accepted as a theory.

Karl Popper is the scientist and philosopher behind the falsifiability concept. He states that “falsifiability is the demarcation criteria between the scientific and the unscientific”. If a falsifiable theory is tested and results are interpreted not likely to have occurred purely by chance, then it becomes a scientific truth. Truths can be falsified as more knowledge is discovered, theories like gravity, relativity and evolution are constantly being challenged and adapted. With Popper’s ideas it is easy to see that science is a work in progress, with no achievement of absolute truth, but with disprovable theories that aim to explain in more accurate conditions the world around us. However, theories that have no truthlikeness at all may cause science to regress, instead of progress. A recent example is Andrew Wakefield, who claimed to have found a connection between one of the most common vaccines given to children (MMR) and autism. His findings were completely discredited and considered a fraud 2010 by the medical journal, The Lancet. His study was disastrous to public health since some parents would not vaccinate their children, causing them to have less immunity towards diseases. It was not only regressive, since it did not provide better conditions of explaining natural phenomenons, it was also regressive socially, since damage was done by the information he exposed as a scientific truth.

Thomas Kuhn, another philosopher of science, is responsible for writing a significant book known as “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, expanding on the nature behind the changing and progression of theories. In Kuhn's work emphasizes that scientists work within an accepted theory, also known as a paradigm. A paradigm can be formally defined as a framework containing all of the commonly accepted views about a subject, a structure of what direction research should take and how it should be performed. Basically, a paradigm contains all the bank of shared knowledge on scientific truths about a specific area. A question to muse about is if without a paradigm science can exist? Without shared comprehension is their a scientific truth? Kuhn proposes that paradigms are progressive, however they do not move in the typical step - by- step progression, instead it is an aggressive process involving eruptions of change. The cycle for which paradigms and theories change are described in Kuhn’s works. He proposes that in order for new more accurate knowledge to be acquired there are discontinuities, in other words, a set of revolutionary phases in which specialists of fields are intrigued into periods of uncertainty and turbulence. The scientific revolution takes place according to Kuhn when their is a “new theory that completely re conceptualizes the relationship of parts held together by the old theory”. A paradigm is needed in order to find a new paradigm and leave the original one out. It is basically impossible to progress without a paradigm since their will be no shared knowledge.

Progression of scientific knowledge may lead to social consequences. An example is the role of Albert Einstein in the creation of the nuclear bomb. He did not directly participate in the bombs inventions, however he was fundamental for facilitating its development. Without ideas from Einstein special theory of relativity, maybe countries would not have experienced the devastating outcome of the atomic bomb. Due to the burst of new theories and knowledge, the development of this powerful weapon was possible, which took the lives of thousands of people. It was never Einstein’s intention to use his knowledge to develop the bomb, however other’s got his ideas and put it in practice in a way that can be considered socially regressive in one's perception. It is all a matter of perception for something to be considered progressive or regressive. Lets take stem cells research as another example. The most efficient way to obtain stem cells is from the aborted fetus, this has caused great controversy. Religious groups disagree with abortion, therefore would consider stem cells socially regressive. However, other groups, such as non-religious medical experts may find it socially progressive, since there can be many positive outcomes in terms of health by using stem cells. Perception will influence one's thoughts of progression.

The areas of knowledge, natural sciences and indigenous knowledge do not differ significantly in how they use ways of knowing for observing and learning about the world. However, the main difference is one of scale, due to different needs of people that are seeking for knowledge. Basically, what differ both is the degree in which they depersonalize knowledge. Natural sciences have a methodology, meaning their is a system of investigation, criticism and revision. While, indigenous knowledge also has a mechanism for creating shared knowledge (paradigm), it is set differently than natural sciences. Indigenous knowledge will be shared as part of the cultural life of a particular community. With that in mind, their are perception shifts between the natural world in the western civilization and in indigenous civilizations. What may be considered proper use of scientific knowledge in western communities, can be considered abusive in the indigenous culture. Therefore, social progress is established by one's definition of the boundary between right and wrong.

The natural sciences are an amazing area of knowledge for the understanding they have given us of the world that we live in. Through meticulous testing, scrupulous observations and peer review scientists construct knowledge claims of the world around us, trying to each time more to develop disprovable scientific truths that are more complete and more modern to explain the natural phenomenons of the world. Yet, this natural cognitive progression of science may lead to social implications, affecting negatively the people and nature of earth. It is important to always remember that with great knowledge, comes great responsibility.

Word count: 1407