Protoscience
| Part of a series on |
| Science |
|---|
In the philosophy of science, there are several definitions of protoscience. Its simplest meaning (most closely reflecting its roots of proto- + science) involves the earliest eras of the history of science, when the scientific method was embryonic. Thus, in the late 17th century and early 18th century, Isaac Newton contributed to the dawning sciences of chemistry and physics, even though he was also an alchemist who sought chrysopoeia in various ways including some that were unscientific. Scientists in the 21st century can view his contributions as protoscience. Another meaning extends this idea into the present, involving the distinction between hard and soft sciences, in which various sciences (or branches thereof) are ranked according to methodological rigor. In this sense, the physical sciences may be posited as science whereas psychoanalysis may be labeled as protoscience because not all of its theoretical foundation is based on empirical evidence. Protoscience in this sense is sometimes distinguished from pseudoscience by a genuine willingness to be changed through new evidence, as opposed to having theory that can always find a way to rationalize a predetermined belief. Compare fringe science, which is considered highly speculative or even strongly refuted.[1] Some protosciences go on to become an accepted part of mainstream science.[2]
Philosopher of chemistry Jaap Brakel defines protoscience as "the study of normative criteria for the use of experimental technology in science."[3] Thomas Kuhn said that protosciences "generate testable conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-18th century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today." While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of falsifiability from Popper, he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields "result[s] in clear-cut progress". Kuhn concluded that protoscience, "like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had".[4]
The term prescientific means at root "relating to an era before science existed". For example, traditional medicine existed for thousands of years before medical science did, and thus many aspects of it can be described as prescientific. In a related but somewhat different sense, protoscientific topics (such as the alchemy of Newton's day) can be called prescientific, in which case the proto- and pre- labels can function more or less synonymously (the latter focusing more sharply on the idea that nothing but science is science).
See also
- History of science
- Hypothesis
- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- Methodical culturalism
- Natural philosophy
- Obsolete scientific theories
- Pathological science
References
- ^ Dutch, Steven I (January 1982). "Notes on the nature of fringe science". J Geol Ed. 30 (1): 6–13. ISSN 0022-1368. OCLC 427103550. ERIC EJ260409.
- ^ Reflections on the reception of unconventional claims in science at the Wayback Machine (archived April 19, 2012), newsletter Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University (1990). Archived from the original in April 19, 2012.
- ^ Brakel, Jaap, "protoscience and protochemistry", Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image, Leuven Univ Pr, December 2000
- ^ Kuhn, Thomas (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge, Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science [held at Bedford college, Regent's Park, London, from July 11th to 17th 1965] (Reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 244–245. ISBN 0521096235.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|editors=ignored (|editor=suggested) (help)
Further reading
- H Holcomb, Moving Beyond Just-So Stories: Evolutionary Psychology as Protoscience. Skeptic Magazine, 1996.
- D Hartmann, Protoscience and Reconstruction. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 1996.
- R Tuomela, Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience. Rational Changes in Science.
- JA Campbell, On artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1986.
- G Kennedy, Psychoanalysis: Protoscience and Metapsychology. 1959.
- AC Maffei, Psychoanalysis: Protoscience Or Science?. 1969.
- N Psarros, The Constructive Approach to the Philosophy of Chemistry. Epistemologia, 1995.
External links
- Questions to help distinguish a pseudoscience from a protoscience (a new science trying to establish its legitimacy). Adapted from "BCS Debates a Qi Gong Master," Rational Enquirer, Vol 6, No. 4, Apr 94