Scientific progress is often seen as a linear path toward truth. Each discovery builds on the last, bringing us closer to a complete understanding of the universe. But is that really the case?
Philosophers of science, from Thomas Kuhn to Karl Popper, have debated whether science moves forward objectively or if it's shaped by shifting paradigms. Kuhn argued that scientific revolutions don’t just add knowledge but replace entire worldviews. Popper, on the other hand, believed that falsifiability—the ability to prove theories wrong—drives true progress.
But what if science isn’t leading to ultimate truth at all? Some argue that our theories are only approximations, useful but never final. The history of physics illustrates this: Newton’s laws were replaced by relativity, and quantum mechanics challenges even deeper assumptions. Will today’s “truths” be tomorrow’s misconceptions?
How do you see scientific progress? Is it a straight path to understanding, or are we simply refining models that will one day be replaced? Let’s discuss.