1
“Within areas of knowledge, how can we differentiate between change and
progress? Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.”
According to the American historian, Henry Steele Commager, “Change does not
necessarily assure progress, but progress implacably requires change”,1 a statement which
highlights the challenging task of differentiating between two concepts so intrinsically linked.
Although change and progress deal with knowledge in different ways, progress overlaps with
change in the development of knowledge. I will define change as the rejection and fundamental
replacement of past knowledge and accepted way of thought in a movement towards another
type of knowledge, explicitly representing a paradigm shift. On the other hand, progress relies
on the accumulation and incremental build-up of previous knowledge toward an objective.
Nonetheless, distinguishing between both concepts for each different Area of Knowledge
(AOK) requires different consideration. This essay will argue that it is easier to distinguish
between change and progress in the Natural Sciences, which requires more objective standards
of truth, whereas the distinction is less clear in the Arts, as its emphasis relies more on the
subjective truth.
The difference between change and progress in the Natural Sciences can be clearly
differentiated. As science is motivated by the search to establish provable facts and laws about
the natural world, processes such as the scientific method which rely upon rigorous criterion
suggest that previous knowledge either gets rejected in favour of another type of knowledge or
that it gets incrementally built upon toward an objective. The movement from the Ptolemaic
model to the Copernican model of the solar system is an example of change, and not progress,
as the shift rejected and replaced past knowledge by bringing upon a different understanding
of the universe. Thus, a ‘paradigm shift’- a fundamental replacement of an accepted way of
1
("Henry Steele Commager Famous quote: "Change does not necessarily assure progress, but
progress implacably requires change."", 2021)
, 2
thinking to another- is evident. In around 150 BC, astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy
recorded his planetary hypothesis, the ‘Geocentric Model’, which explained that earth was
stationary and was the centre of the universe, with planets, stars, moon and sun travelling the
circular path around it. However, centuries later, astronomer and mathematician Nicolaus
Copernicus questioned Ptolemy’s theory as he believed that the earth revolved on its axis and
orbited around the Sun. Copernicus’ studies in both astronomy and astrology motivated him
to start observing the universe, known as the ‘retrograde motion’. Moreover, through
mathematical and scientific calculations, Copernicus concluded that the earth rotated daily on
its axis. Subsequently, in 1514, Copernicus’ model, the ‘Copernican Heliocentrism’,
overturned Ptolemy’s prevailing model scientifically incorrect. As Thomas Kuhn wrote,
“To describe the innovation initiated by Copernicus as the simple interchange of the position
of the earth and sun is to make a molehill out of a promontory in the development of human
thought”.2 Therefore, the paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican system did not
only calculate the movements of the planets but represented a revolution in astronomy in a
movement towards a completely different worldview.
Nonetheless, not all scientific knowledge gets rejected and replaced. Instead, it can
experience progress where previous knowledge can be accumulated and incrementally built
upon. An example of where scientific knowledge progresses is seen is in the gradual
development of cancer research. Advances through scientific concepts such as molecular
research have improved cancer prevention,3 screening and treatment, in an attempt against
this affliction. In 1898, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the radioactive elements radium
and polonium and by 1903,4 the first use of radiation therapy, built upon the discovery of
radioactive elements, was used in curing cancer. The most recent discovery of whole
2
(Deeping Our Understand, Denning, 2021)
3
("Progress", 2021)
4
("Marie and Pierre Curie isolate radium", 2021)
“Within areas of knowledge, how can we differentiate between change and
progress? Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.”
According to the American historian, Henry Steele Commager, “Change does not
necessarily assure progress, but progress implacably requires change”,1 a statement which
highlights the challenging task of differentiating between two concepts so intrinsically linked.
Although change and progress deal with knowledge in different ways, progress overlaps with
change in the development of knowledge. I will define change as the rejection and fundamental
replacement of past knowledge and accepted way of thought in a movement towards another
type of knowledge, explicitly representing a paradigm shift. On the other hand, progress relies
on the accumulation and incremental build-up of previous knowledge toward an objective.
Nonetheless, distinguishing between both concepts for each different Area of Knowledge
(AOK) requires different consideration. This essay will argue that it is easier to distinguish
between change and progress in the Natural Sciences, which requires more objective standards
of truth, whereas the distinction is less clear in the Arts, as its emphasis relies more on the
subjective truth.
The difference between change and progress in the Natural Sciences can be clearly
differentiated. As science is motivated by the search to establish provable facts and laws about
the natural world, processes such as the scientific method which rely upon rigorous criterion
suggest that previous knowledge either gets rejected in favour of another type of knowledge or
that it gets incrementally built upon toward an objective. The movement from the Ptolemaic
model to the Copernican model of the solar system is an example of change, and not progress,
as the shift rejected and replaced past knowledge by bringing upon a different understanding
of the universe. Thus, a ‘paradigm shift’- a fundamental replacement of an accepted way of
1
("Henry Steele Commager Famous quote: "Change does not necessarily assure progress, but
progress implacably requires change."", 2021)
, 2
thinking to another- is evident. In around 150 BC, astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy
recorded his planetary hypothesis, the ‘Geocentric Model’, which explained that earth was
stationary and was the centre of the universe, with planets, stars, moon and sun travelling the
circular path around it. However, centuries later, astronomer and mathematician Nicolaus
Copernicus questioned Ptolemy’s theory as he believed that the earth revolved on its axis and
orbited around the Sun. Copernicus’ studies in both astronomy and astrology motivated him
to start observing the universe, known as the ‘retrograde motion’. Moreover, through
mathematical and scientific calculations, Copernicus concluded that the earth rotated daily on
its axis. Subsequently, in 1514, Copernicus’ model, the ‘Copernican Heliocentrism’,
overturned Ptolemy’s prevailing model scientifically incorrect. As Thomas Kuhn wrote,
“To describe the innovation initiated by Copernicus as the simple interchange of the position
of the earth and sun is to make a molehill out of a promontory in the development of human
thought”.2 Therefore, the paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican system did not
only calculate the movements of the planets but represented a revolution in astronomy in a
movement towards a completely different worldview.
Nonetheless, not all scientific knowledge gets rejected and replaced. Instead, it can
experience progress where previous knowledge can be accumulated and incrementally built
upon. An example of where scientific knowledge progresses is seen is in the gradual
development of cancer research. Advances through scientific concepts such as molecular
research have improved cancer prevention,3 screening and treatment, in an attempt against
this affliction. In 1898, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the radioactive elements radium
and polonium and by 1903,4 the first use of radiation therapy, built upon the discovery of
radioactive elements, was used in curing cancer. The most recent discovery of whole
2
(Deeping Our Understand, Denning, 2021)
3
("Progress", 2021)
4
("Marie and Pierre Curie isolate radium", 2021)
