Is Science Progressive?

To answer this question we need to first understand what science is. In the dictionary, the definition of science is: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Therefore, to prove something scientifically both observation and experiment processes need to happen to get to a final conclusion. This process is the scientific method. It is the systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Now that we understand how something can be scientifically proven and how it is considered to make part of the realm of science, we can go on to the meaning of the word progressive. Progressive is something that is happening or developing gradually or in stages, something happening step by step. Now that we have combined the definitions, we can understand if science really is progressive or not by taking Popper's Falsifiability theory and Kuhn's theory of scientific revolution in consideration.

In my opinion, the concept of falsification created by Karl Popper is just an anomaly of scientific progression. Falsification explains that making testable predictions of previously unobserved phenomena is necessary condition for a theory to be called scientific. It is the type of ideology that does not help science progress. Why not? Well, for quite some time, the theory of evolution was not considered to be a scientific theory when trying to fit it in Popper’s criteria. Popper himself explained that the theory explains what happened in the past but cannot predict what will happen in the future.

Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution is a bit more complex. To get to a scientific revolution Kuhn explains that there are 4 steps to get to it. The first step is to simply create a concept from zero. At this point everything in this new created area is possible as there is no model to it. Before the pattern of models in this created area start to appear, then it goes into the second step of the theory. Step two is “normal science”. It is a deeper approach to the pattern created by the new area. At this point, “falsifying” is not the scientists objective, it is all assumed to be true so it can be analyzed in a profounder level. In step three, complications start to appear and it is called the “period of crisis”. As the flaws start to appear the concept starts to get weaker and weaker until it reaches step number 4. Step 4 is “Revolution”, were a new pattern/concept is found to replace the older flawed pattern/concept.  This theory is what I believe in. The theory of scientific revolution defines progression: stages that lead to development. The world is evolving and we are never going backwards. New discoveries come up all the time and we just adjust to it. 

We can say science is progressive even when we look at math (which makes up a huge part in many areas in science). We started with simple addition and counting, then moved on to things like Pythagoras, and now Andrew Wiles has solved Fermat’s last theorem. The same happens with Astrology, back then we could just identify constellations and now, in 2024, people are moving to mars. It feels like science is exponentially progressing and the farther we go the farther we can go.

As the world changes, we change, and so does science. Science is very progressive in my opinion. We are getting closer and closer to understand the reason for our existence (or farther and farther), we do not know, but I am sure that we are going somewhere.