Andrew Irvine's Article: Can Scientific Development Be Stopped?

In the article by Andrew Irvine, it is argued that scientific progress is not certain and that it is a delicate practice that needs nurturing and care. Using firsthand experience from visiting an archeological site in Saskatchewan called a Medicine Wheel. Irvine explains that seeing the structure reminds him of the "fragility of science" (Irvine, 338). He concludes that because of the unknown purpose or purposes of the wheels that their scientific ideas are lost to time and the discoveries made by the aboriginal peoples of Saskatchewan have been forgotten. Using this single example and a quote from philosopher Sidney Hook, Irvine concluded that science needs to be coddled and protected or else the same fate will be upon the discoveries of our …show more content…
Brian Martin explains in Can Scientific Development be Stopped? that advancement in science and technology is often halted in favour of political agenda, providing numerous examples such as Genetically Modified Organisms, the lack of electric cars, and the steam engine. All improvements or lack of are made to benefit the large corporations funding the research (Martin, 66-67). He concludes that "scientific development ... follows to some extent the dictates of social and political pressures." (68). Taking this into consideration, the inevitability of science could be argued either way, but the cultural conditions that affect progress predetermine that the discoveries will take place. GMO 's are the logical result of agriculture, large populations, discovery of the genome, capitalism and various other advancements. Because of these discoveries, genetically modifying crops was essentially inevitable. Some may ask: what if the genome was not discovered? And this can be answered the same way as above, with a list of pre-determiners that themselves have a list and so on. New science is built on top of prior knowledge, either common sense or someone else 's work. Robert Merton, in his essay Singletons and Multiples in Discovery, references Sir Francis Bacon saying that he rejected that scientific innovations would come at pure random, but instead thought that numerous discoveries will come from …show more content…
Comparing the ancientness of the structure to Stonehenge or the pyramids in Egypt, Irvine neglects to later use these examples to emphasise his hypothesis. Both the technology of the pyramids and the uses of Stonehenge are also lost in time, just like the medicine wheel. Some of the theories applied to the medicine wheel and Stonehenge are usually either spiritual or related to astronomy and its calendar applications. No one could claim that knowledge of astronomy has been stagnant since we do not fully comprehend what the medicine wheel or Stonehenge was used for. Since it is not known what the true purposes of the wheels are, there could be an argument that the missing knowledge is something utterly new. But this is just an assumption and it would be just as likely that it has already been rediscovered or is now obsolete. If just the medicine wheel is focused on, Irvine is correct that progress can be stopped. Although viewing the microevolution of science reveals a path that stops and goes and goes backwards, viewing the macroevolution shows progress steadily moving forwards in one way or another. Recognizing the length of the article the shortness does not allow for what is provided to be fully developed, but also using a lengthy narrative takes away from the opportunity to further develop his arguments and support his