This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mccready (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 22 August 2006 (Revert to revision 71132848 dated 2006-08-22 09:08:46 by Mccready using popups). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:22, 22 August 2006 by Mccready (talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 71132848 dated 2006-08-22 09:08:46 by Mccready using popups)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Protoscience" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Protoscience is a neologism with two meanings. The term may be used to refer to an unscientific field of study that later becomes a science (e.g., astrology was a precursor to modern astronomy). Alternately, it may refer to a field of study that appears to conform to the scientific method, but is either not falsifiable or not yet accepted as science or verified by a consensus of scientists.
Etymology
The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn used the word in an essay published in 1974:
...there are many fields — I shall call them proto-sciences — in which practice does generate testable conclusions but which 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-eighteenth century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today. In these fields, too, though they satisfy Sir Karl's demarcation criterion, incessant criticism and continual striving for a fresh start are primary forces, and need to be. No more than in philosophy and the arts, however, do they result in clear-cut progress.
— Thomas Kuhn, Criticism and the growth of knowledge
I conclude, in short, that the proto-sciences, 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.
Examples
See also: List of protosciencesEarly philosophical disciplines that later evolved into branches of modern science are considered to be protosciences.
- Aspects of alchemy served as the foundation for modern chemistry.
- Early astrology included the study of astronomy, cf. Johannes Kepler. Modern astrology, however, is a pseudoscience.
Footnotes
- Speekenbrink, Maarten (2003-10-28). "De Ongegronde Eis tot Consensus in de Psychologische" (Template:PDF). Retrieved 2006-08-02.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
See also
- Philosophy of science
- Falsifiability
- Pathological science
- Fringe science
- Obsolete scientific theories
- Emergent philosophy
- List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories