View source for Protoscience

{{Short description|Research field that may become a science}}
In the [[philosophy of science]], '''protoscience''' ({{small|[[adjective|adj.]]}} '''protoscientific''') is a research field that has the characteristics of an undeveloped [[science]] that may ultimately develop into an established science.  Philosophers use protoscience to understand the history of science and distinguish protoscience from science and [[pseudoscience]].{{sfn|Tuomela|1987}}

The word "protoscience" is a [[Neoclassical compound|hybrid Greek-Latin compound]] of the roots ''[[wikt:proto-#Prefix|proto-]]'' + ''[[wikt:scientia#Latin|scientia]]'', meaning a first or primeval rational knowledge.

Examples of protoscience include [[alchemy]], [[Alfred Wegener|Wegener's]] original theory of [[continental drift]] and [[political economy]] (the predecessor to the modern economic sciences).

==History==
Protoscience as a research field with the characteristics of an undeveloped science appeared in the early 20th century.{{sfn|Jones|1910|p=94}}{{sfn|Hobhouse|1915|p=41}} In 1910, Jones described the field of [[political economy]] as it began the transition to the modern field of [[economics]]:
: I confess to a personal predilection for some term such as proto-science, pre-science, or nas-science, to give expression to what I conceive to be the true state of affairs, which I take to be this, that economics and kindred subjects are not sciences, but are on the way to become sciences.{{sfn|Jones|1910}}

[[Thomas Kuhn]] later provided a more precise description, protoscience as a field that generates testable conclusions, faces "incessant criticism and continually strive for a fresh start," but currently, like [[art]] and [[philosophy]], appears to have failed to progress in a way similar to the progress seen in the established sciences.{{sfn|Kuhn|1970|p=244}}  He applies protoscience to the fields of [[natural philosophy]], [[medicine]] and the [[craft]]s in the past that ultimately became established sciences.{{sfn|Kuhn|1970|p=245}}  Philosophers later developed more precise criteria to identify protoscience using the <em>cognitive field</em> concept.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|pp=202–203}}{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|pp=89–90}}

The historian Scott Hendrix argued that the English word "science" as it is used by 21st century English speakers means [[modern science]] and that the use of the word to describe pre-modern scholars is misleading. "[E]ven an astute reader is prompted to classify intellectual exercises of the past as 'scientific'...based upon how closely those activities appear to mirror the activities of a modern scientist." Noting that [[natural philosophy]] was a far more neutral term than "science", Hendrix recommended that term be used instead when discussing pre-modern scholars of the natural world. "[T]here are sound reasons for a return to the use of the term natural philosophy that, for all its imprecision, reveals rather than imposes meaning on the past."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hendrix |first=Scott E. |title=Natural Philosophy or Science in Premodern Epistemic Regimes? The Case of the Astrology of Albert the Great and Galileo Galilei |journal=Teorie Vědy / Theory of Science |year=2011 |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=111–132 |doi=10.46938/tv.2011.72 |s2cid=258069710 |url=http://teorievedy.flu.cas.cz/index.php/tv/issue/view/10 |access-date=20 February 2012 |archive-date=18 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118024030/http://teorievedy.flu.cas.cz/index.php/tv/issue/view/10 |url-status=live |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==Thought collective==
{{main|Thought collective}}
:''This material is from [[Ludwik Fleck#Thought collective|Ludwik Fleck § Thought collective]]''
[[Thomas Kuhn]] later discovered that Fleck 1935 had voiced concepts that predated Kuhn's own work. That is, 
Fleck wrote that the development of [[truth]] in scientific research was an unattainable ideal as different researchers were locked into thought collectives (or thought-styles). This means "that a pure and direct observation cannot exist: in the act of perceiving objects the observer, i.e. the epistemological subject, is always influenced by the epoch and the environment to which he belongs, that is by what Fleck calls the thought style".{{sfn|Siwecka|2011}} Thought style throughout Fleck's work is closely associated with representational style. A "fact" was a relative value, expressed in the language or symbolism of the thought collective in which it belonged, and subject to the social and temporal structure of this collective. He argued, however, that within the active cultural style of a thought collective, knowledge claims or facts were constrained by passive elements arising from the observations and experience of the natural world. This passive resistance of natural experience represented within the stylized means of the thought collective could be verified by anyone adhering to the culture of the thought collective, and thus facts could be agreed upon within any particular thought style.{{sfn|Fleck|1979|pp=101-102}} Thus while a fact may be verifiable within its own collective, it may be unverifiable in others. He felt that the development of scientific facts and concepts was not unidirectional and does not consist of just accumulating new pieces of information, but at times required changing older concepts, methods of observations, and forms of representation. This changing of prior knowledge is difficult because a collective attains over time a specific way of investigating, bringing with it a blindness to alternative ways of observing and conceptualization. Change was especially possible when members of two thought collectives met and cooperated in observing, formulating hypothesis and ideas. He strongly advocated comparative epistemology. He also notes some features of the culture of modern natural sciences that recognize provisionality and evolution of knowledge along the value of pursuit of passive resistances.{{sfn|Fleck|1979|pp=118-120, 142-145}} This approach anticipated later developments in [[social constructionism]], and especially the development of critical [[science and technology studies]].

==Conceptual framework==
===Cognitive field===
Philosophers describe protoscience using the <em>cognitive field</em> concept.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|pp=175, 202–03}}{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=88}}  In every society, there are fields of [[knowledge]] (cognitive fields).{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=175}}  The cognitive field consists of a community of individuals within a society with a domain of inquiry, a philosophical worldview, logical/mathematical tools, specific background knowledge from neighboring fields, a set of problems investigated, accumulated knowledge from the community, aims and methods.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|pp=202–03}}  Cognitive fields are either <em>belief fields</em> or <em>research fields</em>.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|pp=202–03}}  A cognitive research field invariably changes over time due to research; research fields include natural sciences, applied sciences, mathematics, technology, medicine, jurisprudence, social sciences and the humanities.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=91}}{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=175}}  A belief field (faith field) is "a cognitive field which either does not change at all or changes due to factors other than research (such as economic interest, political or religious pressure, or brute violence)."{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=91}}{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=175}}  Belief fields include political ideology, religion, pseudodoctrines and pseudoscience.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=92}}

===Science field===
A <em>science field</em> is a research field that satisfies 12 conditions: 1) all components of the science field invariably change over time from research in the field, especially logical/mathematical tools and specific background/presuppositions from other fields; 2) the research community has special training, "hold strong information links", initiates or continues the "tradition of inquiry"; 3) researchers have autonomy to pursue research and receive support from the host society; 4) the researchers worldview is the real world as contains "lawfully changing concrete" objects, an adequate view of the scientific method, a vision of organized science achieving truthfull descriptions and explanations, ethical principles for conducting research, and the free search for truthful, deep and systematic understanding; 5) up-to-date logical/mathematical tools precisely determine and process information;   
6) the domain of research are real objects/entities; 7) specific background knowledge is up-to-date, confirmed data, hypotheses and theories from relevant neighboring fields; 8) the set of problems investigated are from the domain of inquiry or within the research field; 9) the accumulated knowledge includes worldview-compatible, up-to-date testworthy/testable theories, hypotheses and data, and special knowledge previously accumlated in the research field; 10) the aims are find and apply laws and theories in the domain of inquiry, systemize acquired knonwledge, generalized information into theories, and improve research methods; 11) appropriate scientific methods are "subject to test, correction and justification"; 12) the research field is connected with a wider research field with similar capable researchers capable of "scientific inference, action and discussion", similar hosting society, a domain of inquiry containing the domain of inquiry of the narrower field, and shared worldview, logical/mathematical tools, background knowledge, accumulated knowledge, aims and methods.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|pp=89–90}}

===Protoscience===
Philosophers define protoscience as an undeveloped science field, undeveloped meaning an incomplete or approximate science field.  [[Mario Bunge]] defined a protoscience as a research field that approximately satisfies a similar set of the 12 science conditions.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|pp=202–03}}  A protoscience that is evolving to ultimately satisfy all 12 conditions is an <em>emerging</em> or <em>developing</em> science.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=203}}  Bunge states, "The difference between protoscience and pseudoscience parallels that between error and deception."{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=203}} A protoscience may not survive or evolve to a science or [[pseudoscience]].{{sfn|Bunge|2010|p=253}}  Kuhn was skeptical about any remedy that would reliably transform a protoscience to a science stating, "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."{{sfn|Kuhn|1970|p=245}}

[[Raimo Tuomela]] defined a protoscience as a research field that satisfies 9 of the 12 science conditions; a protoscience fails to satisfy the up-to-date conditions for logic/mathematical tools, specific background knowledge from neighboring fields, and accumulated knowledge (5, 7, 9), and there is reason to believe the protoscience will ultimately satisfy all 12 conditions.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=92}}  Protosciences and belief fields are both non-science fields, but only a protoscience can become a science field.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=92}}  Tuomela emphasizes that the cognitive field concept refers to "ideal types" and there may be some persons within a science field with non-scientific "attitudes, thinking and actions"; therefore, it may be better to apply scientific and non-scientific to "attitudes, thinking and actions" rather than directly to cognitive fields.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=92}}

==Developmental stages of science==
Bunge stated that protoscience may occur as the second stage of a five-stage process in the development of science.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}  Each stage has a theoretical and empirical aspect:{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}

# <em>Prescience</em> has unchecked speculation theory and unchecked data.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}
# <em>Protoscience</em> has hypotheses without theory accompanied by observation and occasional measurement, but no experiment.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}
# <em>Deuteroscience</em> has hypotheses formulated mathematically without theory accompanied by systematic measurement, and experiment on perceptible traits of perceptible objects.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}
# <em>Tritoscience</em> has mathematical models accompanied by systematic measurements and experiments on perceptible and imperceptible traits of perceptible and imperceptible objects.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}
# <em>Tetartoscience</em> has mathematical models and comprehensive theories accompanied by precise systematic measurements and experiments on perceptible and imperceptible traits of perceptible and imperceptible objects.{{sfn|Bunge|1983|p=160}}

==Origin of protoscience==
Protoscience may arise from the philosophical inquiry that anticipates science.{{sfn|Costa|2014|p=12}}  Philosophers anticipated the development of [[astronomy]], [[atomic theory]], [[evolution]] and [[linguistics]].{{sfn|Costa|2014|p=12}}  The Greek philosopher [[Anaximander]] (610–546 BC) viewed the earth as a non-moving free-floating cylinder in space.{{sfn|Costa|2014|p=12}}  The atomist doctrine of [[Democritus]] (460–370 BC) to [[Epicurus]] (341–270 BC) was that objects were composed of non-visible small particles.{{sfn|Costa|2014|p=12}}  Anaximander had anticipated that humans may have developed from more primitive organisms.{{sfn|Costa|2014|p=12}}  [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein's]] study of language preceded the linguistic studies of [[J. L. Austin]] and [[John Searle]].{{sfn|Costa|2014|p=12}}  [[Karl Popper|Popper]] describes how scientific theory arises from myths such as atomism and  the corpuscular theory of light.{{sfn|Popper|2002|p=347}}  Popper states that the Copernican system was "inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had to occupy the center because of his nobility", leading to "testable components" that ultimately became "fruitful and important."{{sfn|Popper|2002|p=347}}

Some scholars use the term <em>"primitive protoscience"</em> to describe ancient myths that help explain natural phenomena at a time prior to the development of the scientific method.{{sfn|Johnson|2021|p=42}}

==Protoscience examples==
===Physical science===
* Ancient astronomical protoscience was recorded as astronomical images and records inscribed on stones, bones and cave walls.{{sfn|Owens|2014}}
* Luigi Ferdinando Marsili (1658–1730) contributed to protoscience [[oceanography]], describing the ocean currents of the [[Bosporus]] and [[physical oceanography]], and [[Benjamin Franklin]] contributed by identifying the currents of the [[Gulf Stream]].{{sfn|Owens|2014}}
* Philosophers consider [[physics]] before [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]] and [[Christiaan Huygens|Huygens]], [[chemistry]] before [[Antoine Lavoisier|Lavoisier]], medicine before [[Rudolf Virchow|Virchow]] and [[Claude Bernard|Bernard]], [[electricity]] before the mid-eighteenth century, and the study of [[heredity]] and [[Phylogenetics|phylogeny]] before the mid-nineteenth century as protosciences that eventually became established science.{{sfn|Bunge|2010|p=253}}{{sfn|Kuhn|1970|p=244}}
* Prior to 1905, leading scientists, [[Wilhelm Ostwald|Ostwald]] and [[Ernst Mach|Mach]], viewed atomic and molecular-kinetic theory as a protoscience, a theory indirectly supported by [[chemistry]] and [[Thermodynamics|statistical thermodynamics]]; however, [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] theory of [[Brownian motion]], and [[Jean Baptiste Perrin|Perrin's]] experimental verification led to widespread acceptance of atomic and molecular-kinetic theory as established science.{{sfn|Bunge|2010|p=253}}{{sfn|Newburgh|Peidle|Rueckner|2006}}
* The early stage of [[plate tectonics]], beginning with [[Alfred Wegener|Wegener's]] theory of [[continental drift]], was a protoscience until experimental research confirmed the theory many years later.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=100}} The initial widespread rejection of Wegener's theory is an example of the importance of not dismissing a protoscience.{{sfn|Tuomela|1987|p=100}}{{sfn|Oreskes|Le Grand|2001|p=7}}

===Psychology===
Critics state that [[psychology]] is a protoscience because some practices occur that prevent falsification of research hypotheses.{{sfn|Heene|Ferguson|2017|p=37}}  <em>[[Folk psychology]]</em> and <em>coaching psychology</em> are protosciences.{{sfn|Sehon|1997}}{{sfn|Grant|Cavanagh|2007}}

===Medicine===
The use of scientifically invalid [[Biomarker (medicine)|biomarkers]] to identify adverse outcomes is a protoscience practice in medicine.{{sfn|Grimes|Schulz|Raymond|2010}}  The process for reporting adverse medical events is a protoscience because it relies on uncorroborated data and unsystematic methods.{{sfn|Kaplan|Barach|2002}}

===Technology===
Hatleback describes [[Computer security|cybersecurity]] as a protoscience that lacks transparency in experimentation,  scientific laws, and sound experimental design in some cases; however cybersecurity has the potential to become a science.{{sfn|Hatleback|2018}}

==See also==
*[[History of science]]
*[[Hypothesis]]
*[[Pseudoscience]]
*[[Methodical culturalism]]
*[[Natural philosophy]]
*[[Obsolete scientific theories]]
*[[Pathological science]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}
{{reflist}}

==References==
{{Refbegin|2}}
*{{cite book |last1=Bullivant |first1=Stephen |last2=Ruse |first2=Michael |title=The Cambridge history of atheism |date=2021 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-1-108-68899-4}}
*{{cite book |last1=Bunge |first1=Mario |title=Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World |series=Treatise on Basic Philosophy |volume=6 |year=1983 |publisher=Reidel |location=Dordrecht |isbn=90-277-1634-X |oclc=9759870 |url=https://archive.org/details/understandingwor0000bung |url-access=registration |doi=10.1007/978-94-015-6921-7}}
*{{cite book |last1=Bunge |first1=Mario |title=Matter and Mind: a philosophical inquiry |year=2010 |series=Boston studies in the philosophy of science |volume=287 |publisher=Springer Verlag |location=Dordrecht, the Netherlands |isbn=978-90-481-9224-3 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-9225-0}}
*{{cite magazine |last=Bunge | first=Mario | title=What is pseudoscience?| year=1984 | magazine=The Skeptical Inquirer |volume=9 | pages=36–46 |url=https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1984/10/22165343/p38.pdf }}
*{{cite book |last1=Costa |first1=Claudio F. |title=Lines of thought: rethinking philosophical assumptions |year=2014 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |location=Newcastle upon Tyne |isbn=978-1-4438-5349-1}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Grant |first1=Anthony M. |last2=Cavanagh |first2=Michael J. |title=Evidence-based coaching: Flourishing or languishing? |journal=Australian Psychologist |year=2007 |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=239–254 |doi=10.1080/00050060701648175}}
*{{cite book
 |last=Fleck
 |first=Ludwik
 |author-link=Ludwik Fleck
 |date=1935
 |title=Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache - Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv
 |publisher=Schwabe und Co., Verlagsbuchhandlung
 |location=Basel
 |language=de
 |oclc=257469753
}}
* {{Citation|first=Ludwik |last=Fleck|author-link=Ludwik Fleck|year=1979|title=[[Thought collective#Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact|Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact]]|publisher=Univ. of Chicago|isbn=978-0-226-25325-1}}. (written in German, 1935, ''Entstehung und Entwickelung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollectiv'') [https://books.google.com/books?id=0KAGUpaUaGYC&q=Ludwik+Fleck English translation by Thaddeus J. Trenn and Fred Bradley, 1979] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406020601/https://books.google.com/books?id=0KAGUpaUaGYC&q=Ludwik+Fleck |date=2023-04-06 }} Edited by Thaddeus J. Trenn and Robert K. Merton. Foreword by Robert K. Merton
*{{cite journal |last1=Grimes |first1=David A. |last2=Schulz |first2=Kenneth F. |last3=Raymond |first3=Elizabeth G. |title=Surrogate end points in women's health research: science, protoscience, and pseudoscience |journal=Fertility and Sterility |year=2010 |volume=93 |issue=6 |pages=1731–1734 |doi=10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.054|pmid=20153470 |doi-access=free }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Hatleback |first1=Eric N |title=The protoscience of cybersecurity |journal=The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology |year=2018 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=5–12 |doi=10.1177/1548512917737635|s2cid=64688425 |doi-access=free }}
*{{cite book |last1=Hobhouse |first1=Leonard Trelawny |title=Morals in Evolution: A Study in Comparative Ethics |date=1915 |publisher=Chapman & Hall |location=New York |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s31YAAAAMAAJ&dq=proto-science+morals+in+evolution&pg=PA41 |language=en}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=Carl Garth |title=The Nlhaykapmx Oral Tradition of the Three Bears: Interpretations Old And New |journal=Canadian Journal of Native Education |year=2021 |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=Vol. 25 No. 1 (2001) |doi=10.14288/cjne.v25i1.195901}}
*{{cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Robert |title=The Clare Market Review. The students magazine of the London school of economics and political science. |date=1910 |chapter=Dualism in economics |publisher=Students union |location=London |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=exRYAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22proto-science%22&pg=PA94}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Kaplan |first1=H. |last2=Barach |first2=P. |title=Incident reporting: science or protoscience? Ten years later |journal=BMJ Quality & Safety |year=2002 |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=144–145 |doi=10.1136/qhc.11.2.144|pmid=12448806 |s2cid=22816124 |doi-access=free |pmc=1743593 }}
*{{cite book |editor-last1=Lakatos |editor-first1=Imre |editor-last2=Musgrave |editor-first2=Alan |chapter=Reflections on my critics |last1=Kuhn |first1=Thomas Samuel |title=Criticism and the growth of knowledge; |year=1970 |publisher=University Press |location=Cambridge [England] |isbn=0-521-09623-5}}
*{{cite book  |editor-last1=Lilienfeld |editor-first1=Scott O. |editor-last2=Waldman |editor-first2=Irwin D. |last1=Heene |first1=Moritz |last2=Ferguson |first2=Christopher J. |title=Psychological science under scrutiny: recent challenges and proposed solutions |chapter=Psychological Science's Aversion to the Null, and Why Many of the Things You Think Are True, Aren't|year=2017 |publisher=Wiley Blackwell |location=Chichester, West Sussex, UK |pages=34–52 |isbn=978-1-118-66107-9 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VMbXDQAAQBAJ&dq=Psychological+Science+Under+Scrutiny:+Recent+Challenges+and+Proposed+Solutions&pg=PR3}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Newburgh |first1=Ronald |last2=Peidle |first2=Joseph |last3=Rueckner |first3=Wolfgang |title=Einstein, Perrin, and the reality of atoms: 1905 revisited |journal=American Journal of Physics |year=2006 |volume=74 |issue=6 |pages=478–481 |doi=10.1119/1.2188962|bibcode=2006AmJPh..74..478N }}
*{{cite book |last1=Oreskes |first1=Naomi |last2=Le Grand |first2=Homer |title=Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth |year=2001 |publisher=Westview Press |location=Boulder, Colo. |isbn=0-8133-3981-2}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Owens |first1=Nicholas J. P. |title=Sustained UK marine observations. Where have we been? Where are we now? Where are we going? |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences |year=2014 |volume=372 |issue=2025 |article-number=20130332 |doi=10.1098/rsta.2013.0332|pmid=25157193 |s2cid=34909909 |doi-access=free |pmc=4150290 |bibcode=2014RSPTA.37230332O }}
*{{cite book |editor-last1=Pitt |editor-first1=Joseph C. |editor-last2=Pera |editor-first2=Marcello |title=Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning |chapter=Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience |last1=Tuomela |first1=Raimo |series=Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science |pages=83–102 |year=1987 |volume=98 |publisher=Springer Netherlands |location=Dordrecht |doi=10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6 |isbn=978-94-009-3780-2 |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6}}
*{{cite book |last1=Popper |first1=Karl R. |title=Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge |year=2002 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=0-415-28593-3}}
*{{cite journal |last1=Sehon |first1=Scott R. |title=Natural-Kind Terms and the Status of Folk Psychology |journal=American Philosophical Quarterly |year=1997 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=333–344 |jstor=20009903 |issn=0003-0481}}
{{Refend}}

==External links==
*{{cite web |title=Questions to help distinguish a pseudoscience from a protoscience |url=http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/moller.html |date=7 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107043502/http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/PSEUDO/moller.html |archive-date=2012-01-07 }}

{{Wiktionary|protoscience}}
{{Philosophy of science}}
[[Category:History of science]]
[[Category:Scientific method]]