Is Science Progressive?

Let’s think about this question, is science progressive? What does this mean? I guess we want to find out if science evolves in a way, adapts and changes? First off, it’s important to analyze the ability of us humans to even observe the truth behind this question. Its much more complex than we may think. Take the theory of relativity for example. Can we consider this to be have progressed over the years? In a way, not really because it was created and devised by Einstein in the early 1900’s but ever since, there haven’t been any true additions or adjustments made to this theory. However, this is a very biased way to analyze the question, after all there are various sections of science with numerous theories and experiments. It is impossible to generalize because they could range from theoretical, physical, natural, medicinal etc. So where do we start? I would say from the clearest examples to prove the question as yes. Take modern medicine for example. There have been significant progresses and evolutions to this area. It is out of question to say that it has not changed since medieval medicinal practices for example. From leeches, we now treat patients with unimaginable amounts of medicine, vaccines, and antibiotics. Medicine is a very interesting aspect of science though, because it falls plainly into the practical science area. All discoveries and experiments are made to advance the science and be put into a practical use, to cure or treat certain ailments. Then we need to move on to the much more ambiguous section of “the sciences.” Let’s take theoretical sciences, such as physics. It is impossibly harder to quantify or find the truth behind advancements of theoretical physics. This is due entirely to its nature of being metaphysical, or talking about that which we cannot necessarily see or put to practical use. Any new knowledge or discoveries can only be classified as theories, and not completely true. So to what extent is this science ever progressing. How often do we hear of new findings in relation to theoretical physics? We could very well be biased because the science is very advanced and it is not as easy to make a breakthrough, but the more logical reason is due to the paradigms formed behind these sciences. According to Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution, there are certain paradigms created that essentially underline a set of beliefs that a certain area of science believes in and bases its discoveries. Each scientist is contributing to add one more vital piece of the puzzle. It is this concept that causes so much controversy and is essential to this question. Scientists spend millions of dollars, time and resources to make new discoveries, however small they may be. And when a new theory comes out, many times it can potentially restructure and destroy that whole paradigm as they know it. Because of this, it may be hard for new theories to be considered truths. Nobody wants their work to be invalidated and have to completely start again. So to what extent is it easy for someone to contribute to the theoretical physics scientific community, and then further, how much has this science truly progressed. And what is the practicality of it. If extensive amounts of research are used only for these means, what is the point if modern science is not advanced enough to make any substantial discoveries. This is where the question: is science progressive gets truly foggy and confusing. Furthermore, there are more aspects that cause this science to be incredibly hard to progress. Let’s take Popper’s concept of falsifiability. It is nowadays; a theory considered true by the scientific community that for a scientific discovery to be true, it must be falsifiable (i.e. can be proved wrong or have areas of uncertainty). In a way, this theory somewhat disproves or contradicts what most of us believe to be the foundations of science. Science should be a study that is certain and always have a basis on facts. However, the very reality of theories having uncertainty or space to be shown false is what makes it true or viable. This adds unimaginable amounts of confusion to the creation of a scientific discovery in any type of area. How false can a theory be? Is modern technology advanced enough to successfully make contributions to the scientific community? Take the hadron collider for example. Are we ahead of our time? Should we even be experimenting with these things. And even if it can successfully make it work, how will we ever be able to test if the theory is speculation or a scientific truth? These are the questions that puzzle scientists in modern day. There are many proofs that can lean the question to either way. But if we consider the practicality of society and if we ever want to arrive to the answer of any question, let us take the most sensible path, and in this case I would have to say that science is in fact progressive, given the huge discoveries and advancements made in many areas of modern science.