Development of science and scientific knowledge in the modern age

Certainly at the beginning of Europe's "Age of Reason," centrally exercised authoritative powers began to diminish in favor of a civilian class that became interested in the activities of such individual scientists and independent philosophers as Descartes and Spinoza. At a later stage (in the 18th century), science even became a kind of fashion in the sense that people gathered in "salons" to demonstrate the wonders of nature through experimental performances. In short, science aspired to a position as an expression of civilization in all respects equal to art. The driving force has not yet been the expectation that scientific knowledge can be used for the benefit of humanity, but some useful applications have emerged. It was critical of the advances in navigation and warfare that allowed Britain (and Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands) to "rule the waves" and colonize the rest of the known world. There were major advances during the time in geography, astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, biological taxonomy, medical practice, manufacturing and engineering, and a fresh understanding of magnetism and electricity. As the role of universities in institutionalized science began to diminish, learned societies became the cornerstone of organized science. After 1700, a huge number of official academies and societies were founded in Europe, and by 1789 there were more than seventy official scientific societies. The 18th century might deserve the epithet "Age of the Academies." Although this period could be personified by the names of famous scientists who contributed significantly to the progress of science (e.g. Laplace, Lomonosov, Newton, Priestley, Volta), we should well remember the essential spirit of the age, which is embodied in the motto of the Royal Society of London (1660), "Nullius in verba". This is a signature of the members' determination to establish the facts only through experimentation. (Britt, 2018)

If we accept the growing authority of experimentation, but also into science today, there is no doubt that the momentum increased during the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th century. In parallel with industrialization, the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes gained a new speed. This transition was essentially a change from hand-made to machine-made. This led to an increase in chemical production and iron production processes, which was made possible by the increased use of steam power as a source of energy produced by burning coal. The operation of a steam engine is based on the two laws of thermodynamics relating to the conversion and conservation of energy and the amount of work that can be done by the heat transfer process. It is noteworthy that these laws were formulated (e.g. the Second Law of Clausius 1865) long after the first working engines were constructed (James Watt 1781). Clausius restated Carnot's principle (1824) as the Carnot cycle, which helped early engineers greatly improve the efficiency of the steam engine. On the other hand, it is also necessary to consider how far these discoveries go back in our modern times, but still have the greatest importance for many branches of modern science. (Cardwell, 1971)

It took a century and a half after Clausius for it to be fully realized that the second law originally formulated for physical thermodynamic processes is also of great importance for the understanding of these same processes in chemical conversions and biochemical pathways in living cells. An appreciation of the "philosophy" behind these processes led directly to the new functional "entropy" as a general indicator of the constraint of the governing processes. The latter term was originally coined by Clausius (from the Greek) as "content of transformation". Similar universal merit can be attributed to the theory of biological evolution, the formulation of the action of environmental selection on natural spontaneous biological variation, as proposed by Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species, published in 1859. It has become the unifying theory of the biological sciences that explains the diversity of life. (Desmond, 1991)

The number of influential scientists and inventors in the second half of the 19th century is too great to be honored in this essay. We mention only a few people who are recognized by most as having made significant contributions to the advancement of science; in physics, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck, Kelvin, van der Waals, Fourier and in other disciplines Pasteur and Curie. It is said that the 19th century saw the birth of the professional scientist, a title first used in 1833 by Whewell, a fellow at Trinity College Cambridge, himself a uomo universal, mineralogist, scientific philosopher and historian. He was probably the first, long before Popper and Kuhn, to study the philosophy of discovery and the importance of conceptual formulation. The beginning of the 20th century was significantly marked by Einstein's formulation of the theory of relativity (1905), including the unifying concept of energy related to matter and the speed of light: E = mc2. He contributed much more, especially to statistical mechanics, and provided a great inspirational influence to many other physicists. In the first half of the century, many physicists became famous for their breakthroughs in physics. Their pictures and names are well recorded during several conferences in Solvay, Belgium. The foundations of modern physics were undoubtedly laid in the 19th century, but in the 20th century the field grew into a foundational discipline contributing to all of today's basic natural sciences, astronomy, chemistry and biology. (Pilkington, 2018)

Although it took a hundred years from Claus's time until it was fully recognized that all biological processes must also be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, the line between the origin of the living and non-living worlds is finally blurred. The year 1953 was an important landmark in biology when Crick and Watson described the structure of DNA, the carrier of genetic information. If we give nicknames to different ages of progress, then the 20th century deserves the "age of physics and information". (Kaiser, 1991)

In connection with this essay, some other features typical of the first half of the 20th century can be mentioned. The first is the intensification of disputes between the main scientists. "Conferences" became where academies and schools fought. The dispute between Einstein and God about quantum theory never ended, although both men had the greatest respect for the other's opinions. Interestingly, Einstein came to many questionable conclusions over the years that were later corrected by others. In 1921, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, not for the theory of relativity, because that was probably still considered somewhat controversial. Development in the organization of scientific research is also characteristic of this century. In the second half of the 20th century, several fields of science continued to make great progress, and here we list physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. For example, there was the development of semiconductors (transistors), followed by developments in nanotechnology, which led to major advances in information technology. In nuclear physics, the discovery of subatomic particles marked a great leap forward. (Taylor, 2005)

In biology, the deciphering of the genetic code and regulatory mechanisms in living cells has paved the way for "genetic engineering," the transfer of genes across species boundaries, and increasing the speed of gene sequencing in chromosomes, all combined to make major advances in the understanding and treatment of carcinogenesis. In astronomy, the limits of space have come into the picture, the discovery of black holes and dark matter made visible by radio astronomy has changed thinking, and recently the circulation of planets around stars other than the Sun has pushed the limits. (Lightman, 2016)

One cannot move on without mentioning the feedback that engineering provides to science through improved instruments and metrics, especially after World War II. A laboratory or a medical hospital looks very different from a few decades ago. The branching of astronautics in many areas was huge. The use of satellite observations has become very important for astronomy and climatology. Sophisticated tools have become indispensable in almost all branches of science, not least in speeding up research, in facilitating the collection and interpretation of data, and in the creation of models using computer programs. If the models are not handled with care, there are several disadvantages to be mentioned. However, it should be recognized that the speed at which computers produce output is no guarantee of the quality of the conclusions. (Kaler, 1994)

The development of science to the contemporary period

First of all, we must isolate the essence of the results of the progress that has actually been made in recent centuries, because it affects our better understanding of the processes of nature. A decisive development was mutual enrichment between individual disciplines, physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. This applies not only to multidisciplinary approaches to the study of phenomena, but also critically to the recognition that discovered laws of nature in a particular field may have an impact on others. We have already mentioned the general importance of the laws of thermodynamics and Darwin's principle of natural variation, which are used to understand the power of the environment in the selection of structures of increasing complexity. These two principles come together in what is now called "complexity theory," formerly called "chaos" or "catastrophe theory," and in a sense is a misnomer. Basically, the theory is only about recognizing that chaos is not necessarily a constant state in non-equilibrium systems that exhibit a natural tendency to self-organize. Philosophy that supports observations about how things come into being through evolution counts here. It helps improve our current understanding of how natural processes work today.

We must also mention the phenomenon of serendipity, which has been of great importance throughout the history of science in achieving progress. It is the gift of discovering, recognizing or connecting the unexpected. This simple principle was given a new dimension by assuming an approach that began with a highly improbable assumption on the current scale and worked out its implications. Most of them will inevitably be considered unnecessary and even crazy, but this strange conclusion may actually turn out to be something really unexpected and innovative. In anticipation of Section 8 on the current state of climatology, an example is the assumption that CO2 may not function as a so-called Greenhouse gas. It is clear from the latest report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013) that it is too bold an assumption for some thousands of scientists working in the field to consider the possibility that the effect of CO2 on climate is likely to be greatly exaggerated or may be zero. (Chen, Ghosh, Liu, & Zhao, 2019)

Modern science goes through theories that are tested by observation. If these assumptions do not meet the assumptions, new theories are created to replace the previous ones. There have been several long periods in the history of science when two opposing theories have been proposed, and since no conclusive observations could be made, the alternative concepts have remained the subject of debate among scientists. These were very interesting periods in the respective field. The debate stimulated the development of new ideas, with the result that these periods are among the most productive in the history of science. However, the "law" that science progresses well through conflict cannot be generalized. In several historical cases, we see that the debate went beyond the logic of scientific argumentation and became emotional. New ideas that contradict the prevailing views have affected the authority of the ruling class of scientists in the field. (Passalacqua, Pilloud, & Belcher, 2019)

The Thompson Affair

Deciphering ancient and disused languages was a 19th century area of research. The magnificent decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphs (J.F. Champollion, 1790 - 1832) was followed by the translation of linear form B of Mycenaean Greek by M. Ventris (1922–1956). At the same time, the Maya script has received considerable attention, albeit with limited progress. The determination of the Mayan calendar was achieved on the basis of knowledge from astronomy (E. Förstermann, 1822–1906), and because certain hieroglyphs for numerical signs had accompanying signs, it is assumed that the glyphs represent a geographical location (L. de Rosny, 1837–1914), but for many years this was the limit to decipherment. A new school was developed (E. Seler, 1849–1922 and C. Thomas, 1825–1910) which sought a solution by investigating the supposed phonetic relationships. The symbolic scenario was variously interpreted, but although it led to some interesting disputes, no clear path was apparent until Eric Thompson (1898-1975), an Englishman belonging to the Carnegie Institute in Washington, entered the scene.

Thompson's interpretation of the scripts was incorrect, as were those of several other scholars, but he was able to force his point with great conviction on other Maya scholars and intimidated those who dared challenge his authority, notably the Russian Y.V. Knorosov (b. 1922), who worked on the May script behind the Iron Curtain. Knorosov's first paper, published in a Russian journal in 1952, is now widely accepted as the correct decipherment, but when Knorosov's ideas first reached the West, Thompson was furious "Does Knorosov have any scientific honor? Absolutely not. This is a Marxist hoax." (Hamann, 2008)

It was not until Thompson's death in 1975 that Knorosov's theories received widespread attention and acceptance, which of course led to a rapid acceleration in deciphering the glyphs. According to the analysis of modern experts, Thompson, through his authority and contempt for others, slowed down the development of this field by about 50 years. His exaggerated self-esteem and stubborn faith meant that most Mayan scholars blindly accepted what was nothing more than pseudoscience and sophistry.

Development of the scientific environment

Since the Renaissance, science has become increasingly globalized and connected to the worldwide scientific community. Research is still largely carried out in local institutions with distinctive features, but the exchange of information between them has increased tremendously, especially in recent decades, through daily e-mail communication. The traditional exchange of information has been almost completely replaced by letters. However, research results are still presented mainly in the press through official scientific journals. Research summaries are found in peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, and official reports of research institutions. Scientific conferences are also important means of communication. Internet sites have become important tools for the transmission of scientific "news" to the general public, not least through institutional press releases. This is not the only indication that science has become more of a business that requires active marketing to sell its products, and is not comparable to art as a creative activity. In the meantime, the social environment for many scientific institutions and organizations has changed. (Gordon, 1991)

Countries organized their research and science education in different ways. As an example, both Cambridge and Oxford are each groups of colleges with a small central university administration, rather than universities in the commonly accepted sense. These schools form special social communities with their own atmosphere.

Fifty years ago, many countries concentrated their applied research in specific institutes. In terms of organization, some were largely independent of the government, e.g. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft in Germany and TNO (Center for Energy Research) in the Netherlands, both aimed at industrial development. Other institutions were the agencies of the ministries, for example in the fields of nuclear physics, meteorology, public health and agriculture. However, most of these institutes felt the need to strive for closer cooperation with academic institutions, not least by jointly appointing staff. All of this suggests a change from the traditional separation of basic and applied research to a joint venture structure that more generally aims to align science with the interests of society. (Golinski, 1998)

However, the recent promotion of post-normal science raises the question of whether the mixing of basic and applied science will not adversely affect the original mission of universities as teaching methods of educational institutions and bring results exclusively focused on scientific progress. Universities, on the other hand, have always combined teaching and research, based on the philosophy that one cannot learn about science without personal hands-on experience of research at the frontier of our knowledge. Not all graduates will certainly have the ambition to work on the development of science. Some of them may be involved in decision-making or policy-making in the field of scientific progress. It is to be hoped that these potential "administrators" take insights from the philosophy of science into their decisions rather than being influenced only by the specific goals of post-normal science. In addition to universities, most countries have research institutes dedicated to basic science, without higher education, e.g. Max Planck in Germany, CNRS in France and research councils in Great Britain. They have a reputation for scientific excellence and retain a degree of investigative freedom. Some are directly funded by the government, others by scientific academies. (Tattersall, 2016)

Some are convinced that our society is moving towards a second "dark age" with its specific social aspects. If true, it may affect the future status of these institutions; compare the views of the Italians Roberto Vacca (1971) and Umberto Eco (1972). Eco was less pessimistic than Vacca. He suggests that some of today's institutions remain sanctuaries of the classical understanding of the progress of intellectual achievement, much like the monasteries of the Middle Ages. This may be the future role of those current institutes that are mainly devoted to basic science. The message they will have to pass on to future generations is that promoting post-normal science cannot be the end-all solution to achieving a better understanding of the complex problems facing our scientific and technological society. (Bridle, 2018)

Conclusion

In the earlier sections of this essay, some notable observations have been made about how certain self-confident statements by individual scientists, authoritative bodies, or "advertising agencies" have attempted to convince the public and fellow scientists that science should progress in specific directions based on solid information. Several recommendations were made "between the lines" of what has been written about how perspectives can be broadened. Here is a brief link to some of these suggestions:

Before the published prospects of any disaster can get out of hand, it is necessary to first examine the severity of the potential environmental damage. As such, uncertainty estimates should not be treated as not fully supporting a particular theory, but rather as unknowns that could lead to new theories. The post-normal scientific approach requires a reworking of the location of truth and the pursuit of truth in the light of other philosophical perspectives. Overcome the paralyzing belief in the collective authority of consensus culture. Last but not least, in the search for excellence in scientific management, it is necessary to emphasize the values ​​of personal and unqualified responsibility and thorough personal investigation in all opinions and findings of scientists in the upper reaches of research institutes and advisory and evaluation bodies of all types.

This essay characterized the development of science and scientific procedures in the modern age, the transition to modern times, provided a concrete practical view of the benefits of skepticism, and finally outlined some potential negative trends that occur in the modern scientific environment.

Author: MSc. BA Ján Janek

Bridle, J. (2018). New dark age: technology, knowledge and the end of the future. London: Verso. Britt, C. (2018). Enlightenment in an age of destruction: intellectuals, world disorder, and the politics of empire. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Cardwell, D.S. (1971). From Watt to Clausius: the rise of thermodynamics in the early industrial age. Heinemann. Chen, Y., Ghosh, M., Liu, Y., & Zhao, L. (2019). Media Coverage of Climate Change and Sustainable Product Consumption: Evidence from the Hybrid Vehicle Market. Journal of Marketing Research, p995-1011. Desmond, A. (1991). Darwin. New York: Norton. Golinski, J. (1998). Making natural knowledge: constructivism and the history of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, S. (1991). The history and philosophy of social science. London: Routledge. Hamann, B.E. (2008). How Maya Hieroglyphs Got Their Name: Egypt, Mexico, and China in Western Grammatology since the Fifteenth Century. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, p1-68. Kaiser, C. (1991). Creation and the history of science. London: Marshall Pickering Grand Rapids. Kaler, J. (1994). Astronomy. New York: Harper Collins. Lightman, B. (2016). A companion to the history of science. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Passalacqua, N.V., Pilloud, M.A., & Belcher, W.R. (2019). Scientific integrity in the forensic sciences: Consumerism, conflicts of interest, and transparency. Science and Justice, p573-579. Pilkington, O. (2018). Presented discourse in popular science: professional voices in books for lay audiences. Leiden: Boston: Brill. Tattersall, P. (2016). Community-Based Auditing : A Post-Normal Science Methodology. Nature and Culture, p 322-336. Taylor, F. (2005). The principles of scientific management. Fairfield: Norton.