I have recently published a paper in the Skeptical Inquirer review (Volume 48, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 2024): https://skepticalinquirer.org/2024/10/is-science-progressive-or-conservative/.

I would love to read your reactions!

Here is the introduction (you can read more if you click on the link above + the great audio version):

In our modern world, we consider science to naturally go hand in hand with progress.1 These two concepts are almost perceived as synonyms. Science is progress; I believe in science as I believe in progress. We then consider ourselves progressive, as supporters of progress, “moving forward” in the etymological sense of the word. Progress is often opposed to conservation, with the latter being seen as a symbol of inertia, i.e., resistance to change. In the eyes of the general public and progressive intellectuals, science—which is constantly advancing—cannot be conservative. By conservative, I mean preserving, safeguarding, and maintaining things, structures, and unchanging ideas. But is science only progressive?

Scientific ideas are often seen as revolutionary, wiping away the past, the tabula rasa. However, while ideas evolve, change, and modify, they still preserve certain older ideas that inspire the new ones. In this sense, we will see that science preserves more than it changes. But this is not opposed to progress. Actually, the foundation of science itself obeys a law of conservation, despite being in constant motion. As for scientists, Albert Einstein is the famous symbol of both scientific and political progress (Person of the Century 1999). We often hear that he revolutionized physics and our understanding of nature. However, the historical reality is more complex than we think. Einstein could be a staunch conservative in many aspects, while other scientists who are perceived as more conservative were more open to progress.

This article examines the contradictions and hesitations between progress and conservation inherent to science and the people who shape it through the illustrious example of Einstein. We will defend the thesis that sciences are built in the image of nature, i.e., preserving what needs to be preserved and constantly evolving to endure. At the end, we will support the idea of the existence of a complementarity rather than a dichotomy between progress and conservation in the construction of science.