The Philosophy of Scientific Progress – Are We Truly Advancing?

[billiebn151]

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.

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, billiebn151 said:

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.

This reads like a rather naïve false antithesis. Nobody sensible thinks scientific progress is tidily "linear", as you put it. It often seems to move in a rather zig-zag path. But that does not mean it is not progressing towards a true picture of physical reality. 

Equally, the idea that science builds models that approximate physical reality and are never final does not mean that science is not progressing towards a true picture either.  

But I have a feeling, based on your earlier posts which were short and ungrammatical, that what you have posted is not your own words. If you are quoting a source you need to say so.  

Edited Tuesday at 04:19 PM by exchemist

[swansont]

1 hour ago, billiebn151 said:

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?

No, but then, this seems like a straw man. I don’t think people familiar with science think it’s a linear path. And I would say more complete rather than complete.

 

1 hour ago, billiebn151 said:

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.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can have progress without a paradigm shift, and scientific revolutions don’t represent all progress, just perhaps the progress that get noticed more. Quantum mechanics, for example, did not render classical mechanics obsolete. The latter still gets a lot of use.

And falsifiability is in no way in conflict with paradigm shifts. 

1 hour ago, billiebn151 said:

But what if science isn’t leading to ultimate truth at all?

Truth is matter for philosophers

1 hour ago, billiebn151 said:

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?

You haven’t pointed to any misconceptions. Any part of science can be superseded by a better theory, but in physics at least often it’s in some new domain previously inaccessible - e.g. smaller scale, faster motion - that wasn’t available to earlier researchers. But classical physics still works in its area of applicability. I think “misconception” over-dramatizes the situation.

1 hour ago, billiebn151 said:

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.

More and better models.

[Lan Todak]

3 hours ago, billiebn151 said:

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.

I don't know about others but fusion progress will eventually fail. Once they exceed threshold, longer chain reaction will happen. That will drain up energy. They will s when that happens.

Edited Tuesday at 07:32 PM by Lan Todak

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

This reads like a rather naïve false antithesis. Nobody sensible thinks scientific progress is tidily "linear", as you put it. It often seems to move in a rather zig-zag path. But that does not mean it is not progressing towards a true picture of physical reality. 

Not only that. I always imagine it more radial- i.e. there are some tenets that we are somewhat certain about and then branch out into all kinds of related things. Whatever we learn about these edges can solidify our central assumptions. Or, if it turns out that too many aspects point a particular way, we shift the center of gravity to a new assumption and now spread out from there. It could be a biology thing, but frequently it looks to me more like random walk rather than towards a specific goal (could also because we are better at fermenting and consuming fermented stuff).

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not only that. I always imagine it more radial- i.e. there are some tenets that we are somewhat certain about and then branch out into all kinds of related things. Whatever we learn about these edges can solidify our central assumptions. Or, if it turns out that too many aspects point a particular way, we shift the center of gravity to a new assumption and now spread out from there. It could be a biology thing, but frequently it looks to me more like random walk rather than towards a specific goal (could also because we are better at fermenting and consuming fermented stuff).

Yes, the metaphor of a spreading area of what we understand has some appeal, I agree.  However I think what the chatbot was spieling about is the idea of successive models for the same set of phenomena which may be thought to progress towards - or even reach - a description of an ultimate physical reality. 

Let's see if there is any follow up from the OP. I doubt there will be.

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:17 AM by exchemist

[dimreepr]

In answer to the topic title, we can't help it; if science work's, something's will advance, it's an evolutionary imperative.