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. 

[dedo]

On 2/4/2025 at 9:06 AM, 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 would say that science is progressing, but not in a straight line and likely not in the best way forward.   This means that critical areas of science may be getting neglected because other areas are easier to generate $.

A neglected area may be the soft science of human behavior.  Personally, I believe the answer to the Fermi paradox is that a lot of intelligent life destroys itself before advancing to FTL because technology advances faster than the science of understanding and preventing group violence.  This likely occurs in the nuclear age and protects the galaxy from aggressive cultures.   Defense companies make money selling weapons, not by selling harmony.  

So, because we race ahead with technology with little comparative effort to understand and prevent aggression, this flaw in human pursuit of science places humanity at high risk of getting "filtered".

 

[studiot]

On 2/4/2025 at 4:06 PM, 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?

Yes it is, but I do not think you mean linear, I think you mean sequential.

 

1 hour ago, dedo said:

I would say that science is progressing, but not in a straight line and likely not in the best way forward.   This means that critical areas of science may be getting neglected because other areas are easier to generate $.

Yes I agree but not only is it not linear it is not always in the forward direction.

Have you heard of the dark ages ?

 

1 hour ago, dedo said:

A neglected area may be the soft science of human behavior.  Personally, I believe the answer to the Fermi paradox is that a lot of intelligent life destroys itself before advancing to FTL because technology advances faster than the science of understanding and preventing group violence.  This likely occurs in the nuclear age and protects the galaxy from aggressive cultures.   Defense companies make money selling weapons, not by selling harmony.  

So, because we race ahead with technology with little comparative effort to understand and prevent aggression, this flaw in human pursuit of science places humanity at high risk of getting "filtered".

Interesting comment and welcome.

I see from your postings that you have a wide interest in the Sciences, so with respect;

When you say "This likely occurs" it is not very scinetific unless you adopt the scientific rigour ot backing up you statistical assertion with some facts, references or reasoning.

 

[dedo]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

When you say "This likely occurs" it is not very scinetific unless you adopt the scientific rigour ot backing up you statistical assertion with some facts, references or reasoning.

Did not want to stray too far off the OP's original ? as some of the "evidence" was outlined in other posts.   A brief summary of evidence that the Fermi paradox is a filter to protect the galaxy from aggression includes:

1.  There is a vast difference in ages between star systems.  On Earth, even a 20 y difference in technology can produce a major military advantage.  If alien intelligent life followed Earth evolution, then you would expect either endless war (Star Wars) or tyranny but there is no evidence for that.  If aliens have visited, at least so far they are not aggressive.

2.  There is evidence of a cumulative process behind group violence.  The evidence is called the power law data discovered by Lewis Richardson in 1949, unfortunately mostly ignored in international relations literature & not even included in most textbooks solely devoted to theories about the "cause of war" which is unknown.  Power law means there is a relationship between frequency & intensity for war, such that wars are small & frequent or rare and huge.  Forest fires follow the same distribution as do earthquakes.  So do other models, but these types of systems are often modeled with a computer sandpile model.  Sand pours onto a sandpile and avalanches (wars) are measured that follow a power law.  This implies that there may be an input process.

If you look at the last two periods of global war, lumping WWI / WWII into one period of intense conflict, then the interval between "avalanches", onset to onset is 109 years with an intensity increase of about a factor of 20.  If the pattern repeats, then the rough estimation of onset for WWIII is 2023 with an estimated casualty level of about 2 billion.  If you model "end to beginning", or 1815 to 1914, then that puts onset for WWIII at 2044.  Of course if the onset is later, intensity should be worse.  Either way, it puts onset for WWIII in the 21st Century, likely sometime before 2050 meaning the "nuclear age".

3.  We know FTL technology (if it exists) is much more difficult than nuclear technology.  Thus, since nature often has "elegant design", it is logical that there may be a filter to protect the galaxy from aggression.

Hope this is not too much detail & evidence is not proof, but it is evidence.  Would prefer to be wrong & see evidence to the contrary that so far has eluded me.

Also, some people just can't deal with it from denial.  I have seen people used to dealing with life & death emergencies become agitated if conversation ventures in that direction, so I try to be sensitive to that as not everyone wants to discuss the "fate of the world" etc.

[studiot]

Just now, dedo said:

Did not want to stray too far off the OP's original ? as some of the "evidence" was outlined in other posts

A good idea to stick to the OP.  One topic per thread is preferred at SF.

 

My aim is to encourages participants to look much further back in history and much mor widely geographically when discussing progress of Science.

I think the picture looks very different from an expanded point of view.

[dedo]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

My aim is to encourages participants to look much further back in history and much mor widely geographically when discussing progress of Science.

I think the picture looks very different from an expanded point of view.

Exactly.  I try to consciously look at situations like a camera with telephoto lenses needed sometimes to focus, but wide angle lenses to take in the "big picture" required just as often to combat tunnel vision.  I also try to look at more than one field to see if similar problems have been solved elsewhere.  

I think that "widening the perspective" to both history and other fields may be part of the solution to the OP's original question & may be a vital path to improving scientific progress.

[studiot]

Just now, dedo said:

Exactly.  I try to consciously look at situations like a camera with telephoto lenses needed sometimes to focus, but wide angle lenses to take in the "big picture" required just as often to combat tunnel vision.  I also try to look at more than one field to see if similar problems have been solved elsewhere.  

I think that "widening the perspective" to both history and other fields may be part of the solution to the OP's original question & may be a vital path to improving scientific progress.

Yes but 'scientific progress' is patchy. It proceeds at different rates at different times and in different places on Earth.

And sometimes it goes backwards and stuff is lost.

Edited 20 hours ago by studiot

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, dedo said:

I think that "widening the perspective" to both history and other fields may be part of the solution to the OP's original question & may be a vital path to improving scientific progress.

But the point is, we can't predict progress, even scientifically; all we can do is take a best guess, at what might happen tomorrow.

Progress is a spontaneous event, and all history seems to provide is the odds-on favorites.

What's really strange, is how often the house wins; it's like we never learn... 🙄