Will We Lose Our Jobs to Robots?

Will We Loose Our Jobs to Robots?

            An article from the New York Times called “Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split” by Claire Miller brought up an interesting question about the groundbreaking advances in technology. It is really interesting to see how cars are driving by themselves and how robots can make full surgery with 10X more precision then a human hand can. However, some thinkers find that quite horrifying due to the very nature of the concept. Robots are getting better then humans. If robots can do everything that a human can do (sometimes, even better), then will they not take away our jobs? A partner from Open Tech Strategies is preparing for the worse. He stated, “We’re going to have to come to grips with a long-term employment crisis”.

            Indeed, with the advances in the A.I. business, humans will have less and less work to do. However, when we look at our societies’ history with big economic changes, we adapt. For example, in the agricultural Revolution, many people lost their jobs to machines in farms and plantations. This created a massive rural exodus and most people that lived in the farm went to the city environment, which, at the same time, needed people for man-work. The people who lost their job just adapted to this new type of work at industries and factories. Even though many people started to live in the streets and at slums for some period of time, most of them eventually bought houses and continued their lives just as it was. Also, children started to be taught how to do math or right an essay instead of learning how to plant corn or milk a cow. All because this was the new type of jobs most of them were going to pursue.

            If the robots get as good as humans in every possible job there is, then humans don’t longer need to work. In the movie Zeitgeist II, the director Peter Joseph explains how society could start focusing on other things, like the universe and trying to search for other habitable planets. While robots are maintaining society stable, we could create this new society, which is similar to Karl Marx’s utopian society, and have everybody work together to evolve, not as an individual, but as a civilization. Truly, no one would ever need to do a thing, but if they wanted to help the group, each person would be able to help in a different way, as we all do today.

           

            In the other hand, we could have total catastrophe if we do not change the way our society is organized. For example, if capitalist is kept alive, then we could have the majority of the population unemployed, starving, homeless and with no future. There would only have a truly small number of people who would control these robot-based companies and be filthy rich. But again, how would anyone make any money to buy those companies products if they do not work?

            We cannot know what will happen in the future, but there is a great chance that human life might change completely in the coming years. Scientists will continue to advance in the A.I field till the robots surpass human capability. If that happen, we might even mix human with robots to create a whole new specie, whose evolution depends on itself. We could have other types of jobs, continue doing them but a lot better, stop working, create new jobs; we have an infinite number of options. The real question is, are we going to adapt or die in our past?

Is science progressive?

Is science progressive?

We live in the Information age, the Computer Age, the Digital Age, and the New Media Age. These are all names describing a time when humans created new technologies using science to advance and facilitate their lives. These advancements have been continuously growing and expanding to a point where going a single day without technology is almost torturous. The fact that there are various names describing one time in human history, emphasizes the grave impact science has had in our lives. Whether this impact is good or bad depends on the interpretation.

Take the movie Her, for example. Her supposedly takes place in 2025, during a time where technology has advanced and grown to the point of basically running people’s lives. The film portrays a man who uses a computer program, who has enough human characteristics and emotions to be a human, to fulfill his emotional needs. A love story emerges between man and computer. Although Her illustrates a society in which science is in fact progressive, it also illustrates the dependency humans have developed for technology over years of ongoing science. If, in this case, progressive were defined as growing and developing, describing the science shown in this movie as progressive would probably be accurate.

However, there is a second definition of “progressive” that should be taken into account. “Progressive” also means modern, liberal, forward thinking, and enlightened. It is not completely erroneous to say that science has improved and facilitated our lives. Electronic or not, it is practically impossible to go a day without science because science is found in everything; from understanding when you’re friend is angry or sad to understanding why it rains. However, to assume that science is “forward-thinking” or “innovative” would be ignoring ones who solely believe in faith. I am sure that a creationist would not describe science as “enlightened.” In fact, part of being a creationist means the rejection of evolution. It seems that as science progresses, those who believe in science find the idea of creationism more and more ridiculous. Although this is just an observation since I have no evidence to support such claim.

Before going any further, an important question to ask is “what is science?” The commonly known 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.” But this is a very general definition, so when new discoveries are made, how can one distinguish whether or not it is true science or pseudoscience. Karl Popper argues that falsifiability should be the demarcation (distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific). When something is falsifiable, it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument, which proves the statement in question to be false. Karl Popper therefore claims that something must be falsifiable for it to be true science and declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. Although Karl Popper provided one way of distinguishing the science from the non-science, there is no definite way of doing so.

Furthermore, one cannot answer this question until we understand what “scientific progress” is. Normal scientific progress was once viewed as “development-by-accumulation” of accepted facts and theories. However, Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution argues that evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities. Therefore, the discovery of anomalies leads to new paradigms. Kuhn’s theory prevented science to remain stuck within unchangeable, growing paradigms. Again, this goes back to the first definition of “progressive.” Kuhn’s theory still talks about science being growing, but it brings into question whether science cumulate ideas onto ideas rather than shift and question old ideas based on new ones.

Whether or not science is progressive, depends largely on the definition that we give “science”, “progressive”, and “scientific progress.” Like most things, there are many sides to everything and there is rarely one right answer. In this case, before one can even begin to answer the whole question, it is important to look into every little part of the question that makes up the whole because, ironically, we miss the big picture when we directly look at the whole question. Also, if we use the first definition of “progressive” (growing, developing, ongoing), then yes, we can define science as progressive. Science is always growing from different ideas within itself. However, if we use the second definition, describing science as “forward-thinking” and “enlightened” leads to controversial arguments, which brings religion into question. I will probably never be able to answer this question correctly, but I have established something that has brought me one step closer: science is always growing.

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.

Is Science Progressive?

Frederico Miguel

Block: 4

Is Science Progressive?

            It has been a long time since societies started to acknowledge the discoveries of science to presumably create a better world. If we assume, that progressive means getting new technologies, then it is fair to assume that our century has much more technology than 2 centuries ago. However, if we assume progressive means getting answers, then there might be an argument whether science is getting more knowledge or more questions. In Popper’s Falsifiability he presents an argument saying how science tries to answer questions that are falsifiable. This means that scientists focus on mysteries that we can prove to be wrong or right. Something like the existence of God, ghosts or supernatural beings, for example, is not falsifiable. Therefore, science will not work on proving them. Usually, a hypothesis will be made, together with a procedure to attempt to find a solution for the mystery. Something that is not falsifiable does not follow the scientific method; therefore, this area of knowledge cannot be applied. In those cases, the area faith might be used better.

            According to Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution, we used the area of knowledge to answer the natural questions of the world. For example, we use biology to analyze animals, bacteria and other living beings. We study not only for knowledge, but also because we want to classify and understand the world we live in. Still, we have other types of sciences. For example, sociology is the area of science where we try to study the structure and development of human society and the problems we have in them. Kuhn also suggested that science has its own anomalies. They are falsifiable questions that cannot be proven due to the lack of technology or a bad approach to the question. When this happens, a time of crises is established. However, when the approach is successful, a new paradigm is settled. This paradigm shift changed the way scientists approached each question. For example, when newton proved the force of gravity, a new paradigm was established and everybody started considering gravity when doing their experiments. According to Kuhn, science is progressing, because future generations are getting the same knowledge and expanding it in order to discover new paradigms.

            Another way science helps us understand the world is by classifying everything they can. The periodic table is a great example of how we put in patterns things that are really different but it makes sense to leave them in one category because of their similarities. We have a table method that will be able support any new element that might be discovered. This is due to the way elements behave and are categorized. If a new element has an atomic mass of 294 and have its outermost shell completely full, then it would fit into the noble gases column, right under Radon. In the other hand, we might find something that behaves like a noble gas, do not bond with any other element, but does not have an outermost shell. Then, is it still an element? How would we categorize it? In this case, science will try to come up with new types of classification to make it fit in the table or it would create a new table to put every “element” that has no outermost shell. Science has a responsibility of making everything fit into their own spot because humans make classification, not nature.

            Nowadays, a plethora of scientists are trying to prove the String Theory. This seemingly impossible task is falsifiable but we are still in crises because there has been no good approach to change our paradigm. However, with the particle accelerator, scientists might be able to prove that everything in the whole universe is made up of flexible molecular strings. If something like that is proven, then one might argue that science has come a long way and that is progressing every moment. This knowledge would bring us the discovery of new dimensions, which might make us rethink every physics law in the space continuum and change the human perception forever. This connects with my physics class on which we are studying the way an eye works. We saw how our mind will always try to shape something to fit into the three dimensions that we live in. If by any means we found out that there are eleven dimensions, as the string theory suggests, won’t our eyes try to adapt and to it throughout time? As light comes in through the cornea and reaches the retina, our cones and rods interpret them as color and shapes. If we had any new types of cells in our retina, we could be able to see more things. A thorough investigation in this theory might give us the chance of changing the evolutionary path and create things for our own body.

            Progress can be measured in several ways. Science is developing gradually throughout this years and made great scientific discoveries. Scientists are surpassing the evolutionary path and creating themselves our own anatomic development. When we see artificial legs and arms being controlled by the brain, we see how humans are trying to manipulate nature. Some people might argue that this is incorrect and that it is a contrary movement from progression. Science is now taking away the greater power of evolution and making something that is unnatural. Nevertheless, science is discovering new things every day and the more knowledge we have, the better it is for everybody to understand the world and create better lives.

Workers of the World, Unite!

“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

It’s shared knowledge that philosopher Karl Marx introduced his Communist Manifesto with these two striking sentences. My ultimate goal isn't to assess Marx theory's validity, but rather if it can be classified as a scientific theory. To accomplish such analysis, I will rely on Karl Popper and Kuhn’s insights on what is a scientific theory and how to construct one. 

Kuhn described the break of a cumulative enterprise and setting a new paradigm with three steps. Initially, the observer should find and be aware of an anomaly in a paradigm. Then, through constant observation, the break of normality is deeper analyzed, which will lead the observer to the conceptualization of the event. Finally, If it can be expected, than it shaped a new paradigm. Similarly to Kuhn’s interpretation on what is exactly a scientific theory, philosopher Karl Popper argued that the criterion of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. A theory can only be considered scientific if risky confirmations are observed and if it can be refutable. What Popper criticized were theories proposed as scientific, but which couldn’t be refuted or the observed confirmations were the ones their adepts hoped they were, with a very low risk of invalidating the theory. What these two brilliant minds have described is the constant and gradual change that science concepts should undergo in order to be considered truths. 

With this now instilled in my reader’s mind, I will break apart Marx’s proposed concept that at the time, broke a solid paradigm. Whenever defending your ideas, it is instinctive to look where you will find confirmations. Early adepts of Marxism started looking everywhere in the corporate world for conformations, and in 100% of the cases, they found them. But only workers could look for these confirmations, as employers were being attacked and couldn’t find a situation where this newly concept was false. If only Kuhn’s arguments were to be taking into consideration, it would be acceptable to classify Communism as a scientific theory. But Popper defends that confirmations aren’t the only ingredient to construct a scientific theory. It was nearly impossible to prove Marx wrong, as everywhere you looked, signs appeared to prove his concept. However, one aspect could be taken into consideration, which was history. Marx had predicted that Communism would spread around the world in all industrialized nations. It can be considered a very risky prediction, since it was based on the prediction of a number of revolutions throughout every single capitalist country. If proven, his theory could be opened for discussion on rather it was scientific or not. But history showed us that the spread of this ideology lost momentum and entered in decadence during the 1990’s.

Although Communism failed to integrate the category of scientific theory, question such as what is the right number of confirmations needed to be observed in order to prove a scientific theory arose. And why are we trying to get theories into the scientific category? Is it because there is a certain positive connotation to the scientific method, where scientific theories are seen as absolute truth? History again sheds light on how this bias towards scientific method with absolute truth is flawed. Until 1764, western society still thought that objects in the universe were made by mixing the four elements, a concept conceptualized in Ancient Greece. From 1764 until today, we have replaced thousands of paradigm that were first thought to be so perfect that it was nearly impossible to contradict it. Whenever we propose a new concept, it’s hard to look for flaws, but what makes the scientific community credible today is its harsh testing, and looking for infinite ways that could break the newly idealized paradigm, although observation will constantly question existing knowledge.   

In Physics, Newton’s laws are portrayed as the ten commandments for the Bible. They have set the bases for our cumulative enterprise which is the scientific community. It’s not a coincidence that they aren’t considered theories, but laws. As we already know that language shapes our schemas, whenever we put the words “theory" and “law” in juxtaposition, there is a clear intent of the reader to assign a heavier connotation to law than to theory. Law are rules that cannot be broken, while theories are still in the phase of being proven to become laws. As Kuhn would argue, Newton successfully assessed the anomaly, and came up with a new concept where the anomaly now became normal. As Popper would argue, extremely risky calculations regarding the movement of planets were made by Newton, which were confirmed as a range of tools that permitted the observation with greater certainty were invented. But when Einstein came up with his theory of relativity (it’s called theory for a reason), it shocked the entire scientific cumulative enterprise. Through observation Einstein saw that Newton’s law weren’t incorrect, but they could  be perfected. This one element, which is observation, is science’s fuel towards progression. But then, as Kuhn explains, the scientific cumulative enterprise is based on bases, just like math, and if the bottom cards of the pyramid can be questioned, the entire structure could collapse, and that is the aspect which both opposes science progression (scientific community is extremely skeptical to change), but also helps filter wrong premises that could then lead to false future concepts. The science community’s skepticism towards change is justified if you look at the situation from inside the system. If any theory has collected enough evidence and is now considered law, if any minimal future observation questioned that law, all other laws could be questioned and all the shared knowledge of that topic would collapse. However, like every theory and even law, it can be improved if a second mind set were to be introduced and through different lens, observe the flow of events. Physicist  may ignore details that is set as absolute truth such as gravity, but which could be contested by an individual with complete different lens such as philosophers or artists. That it be positive, or negative, progress is an essential ingredient for the scientific enterprise and its main fuel is observation. 

Is Science Progressive?

One way of describing science may be that it seems to explain the universe, seems being the operative word. Science has always been a way of defining and explaining phenomena that we can and cannot see. For example, the way that a pencil falls to the ground when someone lets it go out of their hand. Or the way a magnet sticks to metal through magnetism. You see, science not only explains and defines these occurrences though, it uses a procedure called the scientific method. This method includes a series of steps to test a phenomenon with a certain hypothesis that will either be proved or disproved in the end. In addition to experimentation, conclusions that are later made into theories are only really accepted once the scientific community accepts it. They go through methods of triangulation that can either approve or disprove the validity of an experiment and later, if all goes well, it may be turned into scientific knowledge. However, scientific knowledge may not be knowledge at all. What I mean by this is that science is all based off of things that we think is true. Although scientific theories have been tested, re-tested, re-tested again until it is actually made a theory, there is nothing that really says that the knowledge is a fact. It is simply something that we hold to be true about the world. Take for example gravity, although I assume the majority of humankind "believes" in gravity, it is still only a theory. A thousand years from now we could find out that it is not the attraction of masses or whatnot that makes objects fall to the ground and keeps people suspended on the ground. In this case, scientific paradigm crisis will arise meaning that all of the scientific laws, quantities, formulas, theorems, and even theories that are based on the definition and function of gravity would be wrong. That brings me back to the prompt, is science really progressive. Have we been making and finding scientific discoveries all these years, creating developed societies with more efficient medicines and better understanding of the world? Or have we been basing everything we know after false knowledge?

Furthermore, I would like to take on the question, can science progress? One of the most important ways that science helps the development of our society is the truths that it uncovers about our universe. It is so crucial because of human's natural desire to know and understand the world around them. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are no facts in science, only theories that we think are true. That being said, Popper's falsifiability proposes that there can be scientific truths if a hypothesis cannot be disproved. This means that if I drop the pen, it will fall to the ground. But, this means that hypotheses must be very specific. For instance, what happens if I am floating on the Moon and drop a pen or happen to be swimming in the ocean. Specificity is crucial to defining hypotheses that are always supposed to be proven correct. Popper also adds that hypotheses that cannot be proved or disproved, like faith for example, cannot be considered scientific knowledge. Although not all scientific phenomena can be recreated in lab or field experiments, it is important that there is some sort of evidence in order to create a credent hypothesis.

Once hypotheses are are not disproven, based on a significant amount of evidence and experimentation, scientific theories can be created. Kuhn says that theories are part of scientific paradigms, an example or model of a great scientific achievement. This could be something like Einstein's theory of relativity or the example I used before, Newton's theory of gravity. Now within these paradigms, scientists can then use the information to solve problems. Therefore, new knowledge is created based off of the previously obtained knowledge and so forth. However, there is another aspect to Kuhn's research. He says that there may be anomalies in the paradigms that are created which cannot be ignored. One way we can see this happening is the way we classify animals in biology, for example, the kingdoms of animals such as mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc. Each type of animal has a set of rules that are part of each paradigm, for example, mammals have live young, fur and are warm-blooded. However, there is an exception to this classification. Platypi are mammals that do not have live young, they lay eggs instead. The question is, why do we still classify them as mammals if they do not fit all of the rules of the paradigm? My guess is that since they fit the best with the mammal category, that is where they stay, but, they are still an anomaly because they do not have all of the components of mammals. As you can see, even scientific categorization is not perfect; although we have strict ways of classifying animals, new ones may be discovered that mess up the classification systems.

On the subject of animals, polar bears seem to be huge in the environmental science news nowadays. With the crisis of global warming becoming more of a reality, people are starting to become aware of the polar ice caps melting. However, global warming was not always a big deal in the world and many thought of climate change as just a silly myth that won't actually happen. Has science progressed in this area, well yes and no. One thing that science does really well is define concepts, theories and terms. Although climate change may only be a theory, something that has progressed over the years is the spread of information about this phenomenon and the awareness that is actually giving people the initiative to do something about it. One of the main sources of climate change, as said by scientists, is the hole in the Ozone layer that is getting larger every day because of fossil fuel emissions. The scientific community reports back frequently about the ways in which they are progressing in this field, finding new ways of reducing a carbon footprint or finding major causes of this fossil fuel emission. But what if scientists were wrong? What if all of this speculation and testing was not at all the cause of global warming. What if our universe were in a giant ball that a giant baby uses as a play toy. Of course that is quite a ridiculous theory, nevertheless, in this way, science is not progressive. Science can only build upon what is already known, once a theory is made, although it may be proven valid, it is not fact. Thus, all the knowledge that is created based on that theory is also non-factual, it just checks coherently back with the original, human synthesized knowledge.

Scientists v. Psychics - The Fight of the Century

So, is science progressive? That's a big one, especially because there are so many definitions in there that any answer would hinge upon. First of all, science. Science is, according to the dictionary, the systematic study of the physical world through experimentation and observation. At the same time, when we refer to "science", we are referring to the currently accepted paradigm that has arisen from these observations and experiments. So what does a claim have to be, in order to be considered a part of science? According to Popper, it needs to be falsifiable. So, any scientific claim can be disproved, but is accepted into the paradigm because it hasn't been disproved yet. Take gravity, for example. We're pretty sure that only gravity can only cause two objects to experience a force towards each other, and never away. However, were we to directly observe such a force, such an antigravity, we would (in theory) quickly change our beliefs, because gravity is clearly no longer what we think it is.

Next, we must of course discuss the meaning of the word "progressive". Dictionary? Happening or developing gradually or in stages, proceeding step by step. Now, to make the question a little more interesting, I'm going to assume the connotation of positive progress. So, to rephrase it now with defined terms: does the body of knowledge amassed by mankind about the physical world through experimentation and observation proceed positively in stages? Wordy, I know, but now we really know what's going on.

How many scientific revolutions have we, as a species, had? (These are the "steps" that I'm talking about when I define progressive.) I'm not sure, but depending on what you're willing to consider a revolution, the numbers can get quite high. As soon as something challenges the paradigm and cannot be disproved, we know that the paradigm itself is wrong. Take the observer effect. The idea that observation might change the way in which something in the physical world behaves seems impossible according to our paradigm, and we are now struggling to account for it. This is a scientific revolution in progress. For science to be progressive, all of the revolutions like this one would have to progress towards a single point, the goal of science. However, what that point is remains unclear, and largely in the realm of personal knowledge. Science is so large that it is difficult to explain what it stands for; we have seen science used to create weapons to slaughter innocents, cures for horrible diseases, springier tennis racket strings, or simply scientific knowledge for the sake of understanding the world. What's interesting about all these things is that they have something in common: the ends might be vastly different, but to reach any such goal, the finer the degree of scientific truth that the scientist is able to attain, the better the result. So in a way, we could see the overarching goal of science as truth; truth about the physical universe, no matter what it may be used for.

I have to admit a small bias, here. I've spent my entire life loving science, my schema is that there is nothing that cannot be explained away by physical laws, equations, and calculations. What's particularly interesting about this belief of mine is that, despite the fact that it concerns science, it is not in itself scientific. Why is this? Mostly because of a phrase that scientists love: "oh, that? It's just beyond the reach of modern science". With such a statement, the scientific view of the world becomes unscientific, because it is made unfalsifiable. Specific claims can be disproved:

A: "The earth is flat." 

B: "Just you watch, I'll keep going in one direction and end up back here. That'll show you."

A: "Atoms cannot be divided." 

B: "Just you watch, I'm gonna split one and create a massive explosion. That'll show you, Democritus."

(Fine, this is more of a semantic problem, but I had to get Democritus in here.)

But the idealism of science, and of the world obeying specific physical laws, is not falsifiable, if we admit that certain phenomena might be beyond the realm of our understanding. All we have to say is that something is beyond current science.

Back to my original argument, though, that science attempts to attain truth. Science on the most fundamental, physical level, is all about observations, and descriptions of what we've seen. We know about the strong force holding together the nucleus of an atom, because we've (here I'm talking about mankind) experienced it. But we can't explain it. As you get closer and closer to truth in science, you eventually reach a point at which no new information can be gleaned. Essentially, you run up against a scientific wall. I wish this wasn't so much of a problem, but it is. A psychic usually can't explain why they can talk to the deceased. People like me, with our schema and bias, are all too happy to say "that's not scientific, of course it can't be true." But even Steven Hawking can't explain the strong force. It's one of the four fundamental forces of physics, alongside the weak force, gravitation, and electromagnetism. But we don't know why. Why, then, do I accept this claim made by scientists and not the claim made by the psychic? I myself haven't observed the strong force, I can't mathematically prove (yet) why it is necessary for the structure of our universe. How do I know that the scientists aren't the ones tricking me? The unfortunate answer is that I don't; I take it on faith. That, for someone as dedicated to science as I am, is distressing in itself.

So what is this wall, and how do we deal with it? I suppose what separates the scientific wall from the "psychic" wall is the point at which it is found, and yes, I know that this is a flimsy argument. With the idea of the psychic, no portion of that knowledge is explicable to someone without those capabilities. It is simply inaccessible, and can never enter the realm of shared knowledge. However, it certainly can occupy the realm of personal knowledge, and remains there forever. The wall is between shared and personal knowledge in this case. On the other hand, let's look at physics. How many physical principles can be explained without running up against this wall? A great deal of the shared knowledge on physics can be understood even by a layperson before we reach the inexplicable. And when we do, the wall isn't between public and private knowledge; rather, it is between public knowledge and knowledge that cannot be accessed, which presumably represents truth itself.

Let's think about science as a graph. Truth is an asymptote on this graph; as y approaches infinity, x approaches truth. Neither of these ideas will ever be fully reached, either infinite scientific advancement (because there will always be more to test) or perfect, scientific truth (because some things cannot be tested). Ironically, I find myself here again in a very unscientific position. The claim I have made is simply a belief, based on my limited understanding of science so far. However, it is falsifiable, to whatever extent we can conceive of a day when we will no longer be able to say "why". When we arrive at some sort of fundamental truth (which I suppose some would already argue to be the fundamental physical forces) my claim will have been disproven, falsified, and understanding will have progressed.

So, in a nutshell: yes. Science is progressive. Science is like focusing a picture, that picture being our perception of the universe. In the beginning everything was blurry, and we couldn't be blamed for calling the vague shapes we could make out "truth". But as we refine the focus, our concepts of truth become more and more detailed, regularly disproving previous constructs. We find ourselves in an age where almost anything relevant in the day to day has a scientific explanation which we are certain are. The new discoveries are happening in the theoretical world, far from what we are capable of perceiving. Still, they are scientific, and they strive towards a finer degree of truth.