Is Science Progressive?

            The answer to this question, like science if not set in stone. First we should analyze what progressive mean since the term is subject to interpretation. Because it isn’t simple to reach a conclusion on what a word might mean, I will use one of its denotations only for the blog. Thus, I will have to take into account that I have purposefully neglected other interpretations when I reach a conclusion. The definition will be the one where progressive means something that developing gradually. Of course there could also be a discussion of what the term science means but I won’t get into that since for the purpose of this question the common definition (the area of knowledge) is sufficient.

            To reach a conclusion on whether science is progressive or not, I took into consideration many aspects of science. Like math, we can think divide science into pure or applied science, which include biology or medicine (respectively). Though both are different they are connected to each other and seem to be changing constantly. When analyzing Popper’s Falsifiability, one of the key aspects was that a scientific theory is only considered one through its refutability. This means that a “real” scientific theory must have a chance of being proven wrong. When reading it, the concept shows how we are able to determine whether something is a scientific theory or not and this shows that something that once was considered a scientific knowledge can be “revoked” from that category if falsifiability test is made. Thus showing that what science is can be under constant change.

            Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution exemplifies the progressivity of science very well by explaining what he describes as crisis period. During such new methods and approaches are tried since the older ones have been refuted. Does this necessarily mean that these theories are better? No. As Kuhn himself believed, science is not static and the changes that occur in the field might not always be any better than the theories before, however they do change. For that reason, if we take into consideration how “progressive” was defined, according to Kuhn’s theory it is because in both the definition for the word and his theory the “better” is not mentioned at all.

            Of course these two theories are not all that is taken into account when deciding whether science is progressive or not but there are several “real life” examples that point to such answer. For example, the explanation for combustion before there was the knowledge of what oxygen is. It included a substance (widely accepted in the 18th century) that was known as "phlogiston.” This substance was supposedly emitted during the burning of a certain material.  The modern theory explains the same phenomena through the oxygen theory and attributes that to the taking-in of oxygen, not the expulsion of the non-existent "phlogiston". Another great example of how pure science can be progressive can be seen in the classification chapter. In it the method of classification used in biology and developed by Carl Linnaeus in 1730 is shown to have changes. The taxonomy up until its 10th edition listed whales under fish but now it is known that whales are mammals. This change in classification is a result of progressivity (which happened throughout the 35 years that Linnaeus worked on the taxonomy and happens until this day with other scientists. The progress is still not over and possibly will never be, nowadays however, the modification happens through the use of nucleotide sequencing, which is a new tool that serves as an extended perception.

            These examples clearly show how pure science can be progressive but applied sciences are not excluded form the frame. Recently, a trial showed that a patient with myeloma (bone marrow cancer) had her tumor significantly decreased when treated with high doses of a genetically engineered measles virus. The disease was perfectly suited for the treatment since it normally affects the bone marrow, and when modified it carried an extra gene (of the thyroid) which together contributed to the patient’s (almost) cure from the disease. This example can relate a lot to the concept of when vaccines were created. At the time it seemed like a crazy idea to inject people with low doses of a virus to become immune to it. Likewise, it seems unrealistic to believe that inserting a great dose (more than billions of what a vaccine would carry) of a virus could actually help with the cure of a disease that was thought of incurable before. This example shows a good change, therefore a progress for the better of the applied sciences. This shift in paradigm is also stated in Kuhn’s theory.

            Like in science, empirical evidence was need for me to reach a conclusion regarding the progressivity of science and looking through the researches mentioned, enough was provided for me to conclude that science is indeed progressive. Taking into consideration, of course, the definitions of progressiveness and the common concept of science. Thus, with regards to how the terms were defined in the beginning of the blog post, I do believe science is constantly changing.