Hubbry Logo
ProtoscienceProtoscienceMain
Open search
Protoscience
Community hub
Protoscience
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Protoscience
Protoscience
Protoscience
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In the philosophy of science, protoscience (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.[1]

The word "protoscience" is a hybrid Greek-Latin compound of the roots proto- + scientia, meaning a first or primeval rational knowledge.

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

History

[edit]

Protoscience as a research field with the characteristics of an undeveloped science appeared in the early 20th century.[2][3] 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.[4]

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.[5] He applies protoscience to the fields of natural philosophy, medicine and the crafts in the past that ultimately became established sciences.[6] Philosophers later developed more precise criteria to identify protoscience using the cognitive field concept.[7][8]

Thought collective

[edit]
Main article: Thought collective
This material is from 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".[9] 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.[10] 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.[11] This approach anticipated later developments in social constructionism, and especially the development of critical science and technology studies.

Conceptual framework

[edit]

Cognitive field

[edit]

Philosophers describe protoscience using the cognitive field concept.[12][13] In every society, there are fields of knowledge (cognitive fields).[14] 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.[15] Cognitive fields are either belief fields or research fields.[15] 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.[16][14] 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)."[16][14] Belief fields include political ideology, religion, pseudodoctrines and pseudoscience.[17]

Science field

[edit]

A science field 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.[8]

Protoscience

[edit]

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.[15] A protoscience that is evolving to ultimately satisfy all 12 conditions is an emerging or developing science.[18] Bunge states, "The difference between protoscience and pseudoscience parallels that between error and deception."[18] A protoscience may not survive or evolve to a science or pseudoscience.[19] 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."[6]

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.[17] Protosciences and belief fields are both non-science fields, but only a protoscience can become a science field.[17] 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.[17]

Developmental stages of science

[edit]

Bunge stated that protoscience may occur as the second stage of a five-stage process in the development of science.[20] Each stage has a theoretical and empirical aspect:[20]

  1. Prescience has unchecked speculation theory and unchecked data.[20]
  2. Protoscience has hypotheses without theory accompanied by observation and occasional measurement, but no experiment.[20]
  3. Deuteroscience has hypotheses formulated mathematically without theory accompanied by systematic measurement, and experiment on perceptible traits of perceptible objects.[20]
  4. Tritoscience has mathematical models accompanied by systematic measurements and experiments on perceptible and imperceptible traits of perceptible and imperceptible objects.[20]
  5. Tetartoscience has mathematical models and comprehensive theories accompanied by precise systematic measurements and experiments on perceptible and imperceptible traits of perceptible and imperceptible objects.[20]

Origin of protoscience

[edit]

Protoscience may arise from the philosophical inquiry that anticipates science.[21] Philosophers anticipated the development of astronomy, atomic theory, evolution and linguistics.[21] The Greek philosopher Anaximander (610–546 BC) viewed the earth as a non-moving free-floating cylinder in space.[21] The atomist doctrine of Democritus (460–370 BC) to Epicurus (341–270 BC) was that objects were composed of non-visible small particles.[21] Anaximander had anticipated that humans may have developed from more primitive organisms.[21] Wittgenstein's study of language preceded the linguistic studies of J. L. Austin and John Searle.[21] Popper describes how scientific theory arises from myths such as atomism and the corpuscular theory of light.[22] 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."[22]

Some scholars use the term "primitive protoscience" to describe ancient myths that help explain natural phenomena at a time prior to the development of the scientific method.[23]

Protoscience examples

[edit]

Physical science

[edit]

Psychology

[edit]

Critics state that psychology is a protoscience because some practices occur that prevent falsification of research hypotheses.[28] Folk psychology and coaching psychology are protosciences.[29][30]

Medicine

[edit]

The use of scientifically invalid biomarkers to identify adverse outcomes is a protoscience practice in medicine.[31] The process for reporting adverse medical events is a protoscience because it relies on uncorroborated data and unsystematic methods.[32]

Technology

[edit]

Hatleback describes 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.[33]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Protoscience

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Protoscience refers to an emerging or embryonic field of inquiry that displays preliminary scientific attributes, such as the formulation of hypotheses and reliance on empirical , but falls short of the full methodological rigor, consensus on paradigms, and systematic testing that define mature . These fields are characterized by their speculative nature and potential for development into established sciences, distinguishing them from pseudosciences, which fail to progress despite prolonged scrutiny. The concept of protoscience emerged in philosophical discussions of scientific demarcation, particularly through the work of , who in 1984 outlined it as a nascent discipline that may initially appear unorthodox or akin to due to its novelty, yet advances through iterative refinement and evidence accumulation. Unlike , which remains stagnant and often unfalsifiable, protoscience exhibits progress within a reasonable timeframe, such as less than 50 years, toward integration into the broader scientific corpus. Key features include a lack of consensual agreement on core principles or methods, conjectural results, and the generation of testable predictions that may eventually yield empirical validation. Historical examples illustrate protoscience's role as a precursor to scientific advancement; for instance, pursued empirical investigations into material transformations, including the transmutation of elements, which later informed modern chemistry and despite the alchemists' limited theoretical framework. In contemporary contexts, some classifies fields like and as protosciences, as they demonstrate observable effects and partial reproducibility but require further rigorous testing to achieve full scientific status, though they are more commonly regarded as alternative medicines. Another case is the theory of the , proposed in 1964 and confirmed in 2012 after 48 years of theoretical development and experimental pursuit, exemplifying how protoscientific ideas mature through persistent scientific effort.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

Protoscience is a term denoting an emerging or embryonic field of inquiry that displays preliminary scientific attributes, such as the formulation of hypotheses and empirical observation, yet lacks the full rigor, systematic methodology, and established paradigms of mature science, holding the potential to develop into a recognized scientific discipline. The concept emphasizes transitional stages where research generates testable ideas but progresses slowly due to incomplete theoretical frameworks or limited empirical validation. The of "protoscience" combines the Greek prefix "proto-," meaning "first" or "earliest," with "," derived from the Latin "scientia" signifying "," reflecting its status as a primordial or initial form of systematic inquiry. The term emerged in the early to describe fields on the cusp of scientific maturity. One of the earliest documented applications appears in , when Jones used it to characterize during its evolution into modern , stating: "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." Key traits of protoscience include the production of potentially falsifiable propositions amid ongoing criticism and iterative refinement, yet with constrained advancement compared to established science's robust accumulation of verified knowledge through repeated falsification and paradigm consolidation. Unlike mature sciences, protosciences often operate without a unifying theoretical structure, relying instead on exploratory efforts that may integrate sporadically with broader scientific knowledge. This developmental character distinguishes protoscience as a matter of degree from full science, where progress is more assured and methodical. Such fields typically arise within thought collectives, where shared social contexts influence the nascent formation of ideas. Protoscience differs from established primarily in its incomplete adherence to the full set of criteria defining a mature scientific discipline. Philosopher Raimo Tuomela outlines 12 conditions for a field to qualify as , including empirical , , systematic , publicly verifiable results, logical consistency, predictive power, inter-subjective agreement, progressiveness, openness to criticism, reliance on , use of theoretical frameworks, and a community of practitioners. Protoscience typically satisfies approximately 9 of these conditions but falls short on others, such as fully developed systematic tools and rigorous , rendering it pre-paradigmatic and transitional rather than fully paradigmatic, akin to the early stages described in Thomas Kuhn's framework of scientific paradigms. In contrast to , protoscience demonstrates potential for empirical testing and evolutionary progression toward maturity, highlighting its transitional nature. emphasizes that the distinction between protoscience and is one of kind, not degree: protoscience approximates scientific standards and can advance through refinement, whereas imitates scientific forms but lacks genuine empirical grounding, often featuring unfalsifiable claims and dogmatic resistance to evidence, as seen in fields like . Although early protoscientific claims may initially appear unfalsifiable, their openness to empirical scrutiny allows for potential growth, avoiding the stagnation characteristic of . Protoscience further separates from nonscience—such as or —through its engagement with proto-empirical methods, including basic observations and hypotheses directed toward practical, real-world applications. Bunge classifies protoscience as an emerging field with empirical aspirations, distinct from philosophical fields that prioritize conceptual and logical coherence without requiring empirical validation, or artistic endeavors focused on expressive rather than verifiable outcomes. This empirical orientation positions protoscience as a bridge between speculative thought and rigorous inquiry. Borderline cases like folk psychology exemplify protoscience's hybrid quality, merging intuitive beliefs with tentative hypotheses in the absence of complete methodological rigor. Lynne Rudder Baker characterizes commonsense psychology—our everyday framework for attributing mental states such as beliefs and desires to explain —as a protoscience, functioning as a proto-theoretical system that blends cultural assumptions with explanatory potential, ripe for empirical elaboration but not yet fully scientific. Such fields highlight the fuzzy boundaries of protoscience, where informal empirical insights coexist with unrefined conceptual elements.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Origins

The origins of protoscientific thinking can be traced to ancient philosophical inquiries that sought natural explanations for phenomena, laying groundwork through speculation and observation without the systematic experimental methods of later science. In , (c. 610–546 BC) proposed that the Earth was a stationary cylinder suspended freely in space, unsupported by any pillar or foundation, representing an early attempt to conceptualize cosmic stability through rational, non-mythical means. Similarly, (c. 460–370 BC), building on Leucippus's ideas, developed a proto-empirical atomic theory positing that all matter consists of indivisible particles (atoms) moving through void, differing in shape, size, and arrangement to explain diverse natural phenomena, though this remained speculative without empirical verification. These early Greek contributions emerged within philosophical naturalism, which emphasized explanations rooted in observable natural processes rather than supernatural intervention, fostering empirical observations but lacking rigorous testing or falsification criteria that define mature science. Protoscience in this era often blended with mythical influences, evolving from lore into tentative theories; for instance, argued that ancient myths served as precursors to scientific conjectures by attempting to resolve contradictions in worldviews through explanatory narratives. A prominent example is (c. 2000–500 BC), where systematic observations of celestial bodies—such as lunar cycles and planetary motions—interwove with mythological interpretations, producing predictive records like the tablets that anticipated eclipses, marking a transition from divine lore to proto-empirical pattern recognition. In pre-modern periods, protoscientific practices manifested in transitional fields that accumulated knowledge through trial and observation, paving the way for formalized sciences. , practiced from Hellenistic times through the medieval era, functioned as protochemistry by exploring material transformations—such as and alloying—aimed at transmuting base metals into , yielding practical techniques like purification methods that later informed chemical processes, albeit intertwined with esoteric goals. Likewise, evolved toward astronomy by emphasizing observational patterns; ancient practitioners, including in the AD, cataloged star positions and planetary paths in works like the , enabling accurate predictions without full adherence to , thus bridging with empirical celestial mapping. These endeavors, often shaped by early thought collectives of scholars and practitioners, highlighted protoscience's role in building foundational observations amid philosophical and cultural constraints.

20th-Century Formalization

The formalization of protoscience as a concept in 20th-century emerged amid efforts to delineate the boundaries and developmental stages of scientific inquiry, particularly following the publication of Thomas Kuhn's in its 1970 second edition. Kuhn described pre-paradigmatic fields—later interpreted as protosciences—as immature stages of scientific development where competing schools of thought proliferate without consensus on fundamental assumptions, methods, or exemplars, leading to the generation of testable ideas that often stagnate due to the absence of a unifying . This characterization highlighted protoscience as a transitional phase distinct from mature , influencing subsequent analyses of emerging disciplines. Ludwik Fleck's earlier work in 1935 laid implicit groundwork for this formalization through his exploration of proto-ideas in , where he examined how rudimentary conceptual frameworks evolve within social contexts before achieving scientific maturity. In Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Fleck analyzed the historical progression of ideas about , illustrating proto-stages as preliminary, socially embedded notions that precede fully developed scientific facts, such as early germ theories rooted in observations of minute pathogens. His emphasis on the dynamic formation of styles anticipated later distinctions between protoscience and established , though Fleck focused more on sociological mechanisms than explicit demarcation criteria. Post-World War II advancements in further refined the concept, coinciding with the rapid emergence of fields like and , which exemplified transitional protoscientific stages amid a broader boom in epistemological inquiry. , in his 1983 Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 6: & II, characterized protoscience as an approximation to scientific ideals, where fields exhibit partial adherence to criteria such as systematicity, , and integration with established , but lack full rigor or consensus. Building on this, Raimo Tuomela in 1987 outlined 12 conditions for a field to qualify as —including cognitive connectedness, methodological , and institutional support—positing that protosciences satisfy most of these partially, marking them as evolving toward maturity rather than pseudosciences, which fail systematically. These contributions solidified protoscience as a theoretical category for understanding scientific progress in the .

Philosophical and Conceptual Foundations

Thought Collectives

introduced the concept of thought collectives in his 1935 work Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, defining them as communities of individuals who exchange ideas and collectively shape a shared "thought style" that directs and . Within a thought collective, facts are not absolute but verifiable only insofar as they conform to the collective's thought style, which acts as a framework for interpreting reality and determining what counts as valid . This social structure underscores that scientific is inherently communal, relying on prior shared rather than isolated individual insight. In the context of protoscience, thought collectives manifest as loosely organized groups in nascent fields, where consists of relative truths shaped by the collective's internal dynamics rather than universal standards. For instance, early protoscientific endeavors, such as those among isolated groups of medical practitioners, operate within bounded thought styles that prioritize practical consensus over rigorous empirical validation, fostering the initial emergence of field-specific ideas. These collectives enable the preliminary articulation of protoscientific concepts by providing a social scaffold for idea exchange, though their fluidity often leads to provisional and context-dependent findings. Key dynamics of thought collectives highlight the social and temporal relativity of knowledge, as thought styles evolve over time and vary across groups, rendering truths contingent on historical and communal contexts rather than timeless objectivity. Fleck's framework influenced later thinkers, notably , whose paradigms can be viewed as more formalized iterations of these proto-collectives, emphasizing shifts in shared scientific commitments. As protoscientific fields progress, thought collectives may densify and stabilize, evolving through developmental stages toward more mature scientific communities. Fleck illustrated these proto-stages through his analysis of research in Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, tracing how the Wassermann reaction—a diagnostic test—emerged from esoteric, denatured ideas within specialized medical thought collectives into a widely accepted scientific fact. This historical case demonstrates how protoscientific knowledge arises from the interplay of social pressures and collective cognition, gradually gaining broader acceptance as the thought style expands and interconnects with other groups.

Cognitive, Scientific, and Proto-Scientific Fields

Cognitive fields encompass broad areas of human intellectual endeavor dedicated to the acquisition, dissemination, or application of , irrespective of its veracity. These fields are bifurcated into research domains, which emphasize empirical investigation, and belief domains, which rely on non-empirical conviction or tradition. A scientific field, by contrast, represents a mature cognitive field that fully satisfies a set of rigorous criteria, as delineated by philosopher Raimo Tuomela. Tuomela outlines 12 conditions essential for scientific maturity, including the of specialized tools and methods, the of hypotheses through empirical means, and a strong orientation toward real-world phenomena rather than abstract speculation. Full adherence to these conditions—encompassing systematic accumulation, logical coherence, intersubjective validation, and progressive problem-solving—distinguishes from less developed pursuits. Protoscience occupies an intermediate position, characterized by partial fulfillment of these scientific criteria. According to Tuomela, a protoscientific field typically satisfies approximately 9 of the 12 conditions, such as the of testable hypotheses and empirical , but falls short in areas like the development of comprehensive theoretical models, integration with established s, or sustained methodological refinement. Philosopher complements this view by describing protoscience as an approximation to full —an embryonic stage where shows promise but remains underdeveloped, potentially stagnating if key rigor is not achieved over time. This hierarchical framework positions protoscience as a vital bridge between the speculative breadth of cognitive fields and the disciplined rigor of mature , facilitating the transition from preliminary to established knowledge production. Thought collectives, as social structures shaping these fields, influence their progression without determining the underlying criteria.

Developmental Stages of Scientific Fields

Stages from Prescience to Maturity

Mario Bunge outlined a five-stage model for the maturation of scientific fields, positioning protoscience as an intermediate phase in the evolution from informal speculation to fully developed theoretical systems. In this framework, detailed in his treatise, the stages progress as follows: prescience, characterized by unchecked speculation, myths, and unverified data; protoscience, involving tentative hypotheses supported by ad hoc observations but lacking systematic empirical testing; deuteroscience, where initial mathematical formalization emerges alongside checked data; tritoscience, featuring the development of predictive models and laws; and tetartoscience, the mature stage of unified, comprehensive theories that integrate multiple laws and explain broad phenomena. Protoscience represents a transitional exploratory phase, where researchers generate hypotheses based on preliminary, often qualitative observations without employing standardized methods for hypothesis falsification or replication. This stage emphasizes pattern recognition in data but falls short of rigorous experimentation, distinguishing it from mature science while advancing beyond mere conjecture. For instance, early natural philosophy involved such ad hoc inquiries into natural phenomena, laying groundwork for later systematic study without yet constituting a formalized discipline. The progression through these stages is not always smooth or inevitable, as fields may accumulate unresolved anomalies—discrepancies between observations and prevailing ideas—that prompt shifts toward higher stages, echoing Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts in scientific revolutions. Bunge emphasized that this model draws on philosophical foundations of , underscoring the role of empirical validation in advancing . However, not all fields evolve linearly; some persist indefinitely in the protoscience stage due to insufficient methodological rigor or external constraints, remaining exploratory without achieving .

Factors Influencing Transitions

The transition of a protoscience to a mature scientific field is facilitated by the accumulation of rigorous empirical testing, which allows for the refinement and validation of hypotheses through repeated experimentation and observation. This process aligns with Karl Popper's principle of , where theories must be capable of being tested and potentially refuted to contribute to scientific progress. As empirical evidence builds, falsifiable predictions that successfully resolve longstanding anomalies can pave the way for broader acceptance within the . Paradigm adoption, as described by , plays a pivotal role in enabling these transitions, occurring when a new framework gains traction amid accumulating crises in the existing one, leading to a revolutionary shift in how problems are conceptualized and addressed. Interdisciplinary integration further accelerates this by incorporating insights from established fields, fostering novel methodologies that enhance testability and explanatory power. Several barriers can impede the evolution from protoscience to maturity, including social resistance within thought collectives, where entrenched cognitive styles and communal norms resist external critique or alternative viewpoints. Limited funding often constrains empirical investigations, preventing the scale of testing needed to build credible evidence bases. Additionally, unfalsifiable core assumptions at the heart of a protoscientific framework can perpetuate pseudoscientific elements, hindering demarcation from mature . Theoretical insights from Popper emphasize as essential, advocating for bold conjectures subjected to severe testing rather than inductive , thereby promoting the iterative falsification that drives maturation. In Kuhn's framework, the role of anomalies is central to precipitating crises that undermine prevailing paradigms, creating opportunities for revolutionary adoption of more robust alternatives. These perspectives, building on earlier models like Mario Bunge's stages of scientific development from prescience to maturity, underscore the interplay of methodological rigor and social dynamics in field evolution. In the post-2021 era, initiatives have accelerated transitions by enabling widespread access to datasets for replication and , reducing barriers to empirical validation in emerging protosciences. Concurrently, AI tools have expedited discovery processes through automated hypothesis generation, in complex data, and of experimental outcomes, thereby compressing timelines for paradigm shifts in nascent fields.

Examples Across Disciplines

Physical Sciences

In the physical sciences, protoscience often manifests through empirical explorations that accumulate observational data without fully integrated theoretical frameworks, paving the way for mature scientific paradigms. A prime historical example is , which transitioned into chemistry through systematic empirical trials aimed at transmuting substances, despite lacking a coherent atomic theory. Alchemists conducted experiments with metals and elixirs, recording observations that inadvertently advanced techniques in and purification, though their pursuits were intertwined with philosophical and mystical goals. This empirical groundwork, as detailed in historical analyses, enabled the eventual rejection of alchemical speculation in favor of evidence-based chemistry by the . Another illustrative case is Alfred Wegener's 1912 proposal of , which served as a protoscientific precursor to . Wegener amassed geological and paleontological evidence, such as matching fossil distributions across continents and apparent fits of continental margins, to argue that landmasses had once been joined in a called . However, lacking a mechanism for continental movement—such as in —his faced ridicule and was dismissed as speculative until seafloor spreading data in the provided the necessary theoretical support, marking its evolution into established science. This example highlights how protoscience in earth sciences builds on disparate observations awaiting unification. Theoretical protoscience in physics is exemplified by ancient and contemporary ideas that propose structures without empirical validation. Democritus, in the 5th century BCE, posited an atomic theory where indivisible particles (atomos) composed all matter, moving through void space to explain change and diversity, yet this remained philosophical conjecture due to the absence of observational tools or experiments to detect atoms. Similarly, modern debates its status as protoscience owing to its untestability; while it aims to unify and by modeling fundamental particles as vibrating strings in , current experimental energies fall short of probing these predictions, leading critics to question its scientific demarcation. These cases underscore protoscience's reliance on conceptual innovation preceding evidential confirmation./Atomic_Theory/Daltons_Atomic_Theory/Early_Atomic_Theory) Key traits of protoscience in the physical sciences include the gradual buildup of observational data that enables eventual falsification or validation, often bridging to deuteroscience stages of maturity. For instance, research in the 2020s exemplifies this, with partial models like and string-inspired approaches offering frameworks that reconcile general relativity's curvature with quantum field theory's particle interactions, yet lacking full empirical tests due to the scales involved. Recent proposals, such as spinor-based theories compatible with the , accumulate mathematical consistency and indirect evidence from , positioning as a vibrant protoscientific field poised for breakthroughs as observational technologies advance.

Social and Behavioral Sciences

In the social and behavioral sciences, protoscience manifests through fields grappling with inherently subjective human phenomena, where interpretive methods often outpace rigorous empirical validation, leading to persistent challenges in establishing and replicability. Unlike physical sciences reliant on objective measurements, these disciplines frequently encounter difficulties in isolating variables due to the complexity of social interactions and ethical constraints on experimentation. Psychology exemplifies protoscientific traits in areas like folk psychology, which relies on commonsense attributions of mental states to explain behavior but functions as a proto-science because its concepts lack the natural-kind status required for predictive theoretical terms. Similarly, qualifies as protoscientific due to its heavy dependence on unfalsifiable introspective reports from clients, mirroring early introspectionism in that was rejected for unreliability and subjectivity. The field's post-2010 further underscores these barriers, with a large-scale effort replicating only 36% of 100 prominent studies from top journals, highlighting systemic issues in methodological rigor and statistical power. In , early exhibited protoscientific qualities through ad hoc models that blended descriptive narratives with untested assumptions about motivation, as critiqued in historical analyses of the field's transition toward formalized around the early . represents a transitional phase from this protoscientific foundation, incorporating psychological insights to challenge rational actor assumptions but still facing critiques for incomplete integration of experimental evidence into predictive frameworks. A core challenge across these areas is the scarcity of controlled experiments, as subjects introduce uncontrollable variables like cultural context and individual variability, often necessitating observational or quasi-experimental designs that limit . Recent advancements in social neuroscience address some protoscientific gaps by blending traditional psychological with objective brain imaging techniques, such as fMRI, to map neural correlates of in real-time interactions during the 2020s. These approaches, for instance, reveal shared brain networks for and , providing empirical bridges between subjective reports and measurable physiological responses, though ethical and interpretive challenges persist. Within professional guilds, thought collectives have facilitated this evolution by fostering interdisciplinary norms that prioritize replicable over isolated .

Medicine and Health

In medicine and health, protoscience manifests through preliminary practices where observations and hypotheses lack robust mechanisms, validation, or systematic methodologies, often leading to diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainties. A seminal example is the development of in the early , as analyzed by in his 1935 monograph Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Fleck described the Wassermann reaction—a serological test for —as emerging from a "thought collective" of medical professionals who shared proto-ideas without full empirical grounding, illustrating how medical facts evolve from collective intuitions rather than isolated discoveries. This case highlights protoscience's role in bridging anecdotal clinical observations to formalized diagnostics, where initial tests were applied amid incomplete understanding of spirochetes as causative agents. Historically, early conceptions of germ theory exemplify protoscientific thought in infectious disease management. Prior to Louis Pasteur's experiments in the 1860s–1870s, figures like in 1546 proposed that invisible "seminaria" (seeds) spread contagion, and Marcus von Plenciz in 1762 suggested microscopic organisms as disease vectors, based on observational analogies to plant parasites but without experimental mechanisms or to verify . These ideas persisted in medical practice as proto-germ theory, influencing and hygiene without systematic proof, until Pasteur and established microbial etiology through controlled studies. Such pre-Pasteurian views underscore protoscience's reliance on in epidemics, often applied therapeutically despite evidential gaps. Contemporary examples in reveal ongoing protoscientific elements, particularly in surrogate biomarkers and reporting. Surrogate biomarkers, such as imaging changes or molecular markers intended to predict clinical outcomes, are frequently employed in early trials without full validation against hard endpoints like survival rates, leading to potential misinterpretation of therapeutic efficacy.04313-1/fulltext) For instance, in research, biomarkers like levels have been used as proxies for outcomes, yet many remain unvalidated, positioning them in a protoscientific phase where intuitive appeal outpaces rigorous . Similarly, early drug trials often feature unsystematic reporting, where incidents are documented sporadically without standardized criteria, hindering and safety assessments. This approach, critiqued as protoscientific in incident reporting systems, relies on voluntary clinician inputs rather than structured , as seen in pre-1960s trials before regulatory frameworks like the Kefauver-Harris Amendments mandated systematic monitoring. Ethical constraints further complicate protoscientific testing in medicine, imposing barriers to empirical validation in human subjects. Principles such as and risk minimization, codified in documents like the 1964 , restrict uncontrolled experiments on novel diagnostics or therapies, particularly when preliminary data suggest harm without clear benefits. In during the 2020s, this manifests as a proto-stage due to genomic data gaps, where vast sequencing efforts like the Human Genome Project yield individual variability but insufficient large-scale datasets for predictive modeling across diverse populations. Treatments tailored to genetic profiles, such as in , often extrapolate from small cohorts, leaving uncertainties in efficacy and equity that ethical oversight amplifies by limiting broad testing.

Technology and Emerging Fields

In technology and emerging interdisciplinary fields, protosciences often emerge amid rapid driven by practical demands and computational tools, yet they frequently lack the full rigor of established scientific methodologies, such as standardized experimental validation and predictive laws. This phase is characterized by exploratory practices that prioritize generation and development over comprehensive transparency and , reflecting the tension between technological urgency and scientific maturation. Such fields exemplify how protosciences in can accelerate progress toward deuteroscience—more mature, model-based stages—through iterative and feedback loops. A prominent example is early cybersecurity research, which has been described as a protoscience due to its reliance on ad hoc defenses and case studies without consistent experimental transparency or generalizable laws. In this domain, responses to threats like malware propagation often involve heuristic models and simulations that, while innovative, suffer from opaque methodologies and limited peer-reviewed validation, hindering the field's transition to a fully scientific status. Similarly, AI ethics in the 2020s operates as a protoscientific endeavor, featuring speculative frameworks that address hypothetical risks such as algorithmic bias and autonomous decision-making without robust empirical testing or unified principles. These frameworks, drawn from philosophical and policy discussions, emphasize ethical guidelines for AI deployment but remain tentative, diverting focus from immediate harms to future-oriented scenarios. Nanotechnology provides another case of a protoscience in a pre-maturity phase, where applications in materials and rely on syntheses and nanoscale manipulations without fully predictive theoretical models. Despite breakthroughs in design for targeted therapies, the field grapples with unresolved questions on and long-term effects, underscoring its exploratory amid hype and incremental advances. An update in emerging quantum technologies highlights quantum computing's protoscientific status post-2021, as efforts focus on tests for error-corrected qubits rather than practical , with current systems demonstrating limited advantages over classical computers due to and decoherence challenges. These technological protosciences share traits of swift formulation enabled by tools, yet they exhibit deficits in methodological transparency that slow empirical consolidation. Their potential for rapid evolution into deuteroscience stems from computational acceleration, allowing quick refinement of models from initial . Mario Bunge's developmental stages of scientific fields—progressing from prescientific through protoscientific to mature, model-driven science—illuminate this trajectory in , where applied innovations bridge rudimentary techniques to systematic knowledge. This framework underscores how fields like overlap briefly with physical sciences in foundational principles but diverge in their engineering-oriented, proto-empirical pursuits.

References

  1. https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1984/10/22165343/p38.pdf
  2. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16777/1/Four%20Examples%20of%20Pseudoscience.pdf
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298449297_Philosophy_as_a_Protoscience
  4. https://amj.journals.ekb.eg/article_64667_fe4281cb6d9cebf37e12d06fade1c3eb.pdf
  5. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16777/1/Four%2520Examples%2520of%2520Pseudoscience.pdf
  6. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6
  7. https://www.hpsst.com/uploads/6/2/9/3/62931075/bunge__1991__science___pseudoscience.pdf
  8. https://people.umass.edu/lrb/files/bak99whabS.pdf
  9. https://iep.utm.edu/anaximander/
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
  12. https://astrobites.org/2023/09/18/the-earliest-astronomers-a-brief-overview-of-babylonian-astronomy/
  13. https://pitjournal.unc.edu/2023/01/15/lead-to-gold-sorcery-to-science-alchemy-and-the-foundations-of-modern-chemistry/
  14. https://icus.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Stehling-Kurt-R.-Astrologys-Impact-on-Astronomy-Proto-Science-to-Science.pdf
  15. https://social-epistemology.com/2018/05/31/is-there-anything-wrong-with-thomas-kuhn-markus-arnold/
  16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009943420053
  17. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-015-6921-7
  18. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html
  19. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fleck/
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12328315/
  23. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-secrets-of-alchemy/
  24. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/660140
  25. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/
  26. https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
  27. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/historical-account-of-how-continental-drift-and-plate-tectonics-provided-the-framework-for-our-current-understanding-of-palaeogeography/0C32B80E52ECBBBF07C1F5156582043F
  28. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/
  29. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.04266
  30. https://philarchive.org/archive/CABSTN
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/science-pseudoscience-and-the-demarcation-problem/9EF87F37B273D381FCCA3AD31EB2D046
  32. https://www.sci.news/physics/quantum-theory-gravity-13877.html
  33. https://sociology.institute/research-methodologies-methods/controlled-experiments-social-sciences-challenges/
  34. https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/
  35. http://www.positiveinsights.co.uk/articles/flourishing_languishing.pdf
  36. https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/introspectionism-and-the-mythical-origins-of-scientific-psycholog
  37. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282299544_From_behavioural_economics_to_neuroeconomics_to_decision_neuroscience_The_ascent_of_biology_in_research_on_human_decision_making
  39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691728.2023.2177128
  40. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/01/special-frontiers-neuroscience
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3883133/
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12249078_Ludwik_Fleck_on_Proto-ideas_in_Medicine
  43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24649/
  44. https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/contagion/feature/germ-theory
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028209043131
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11020121_Incident_reporting_Science_or_protoscience_Ten_years_later
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3601715/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6752968/
  49. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1122-7
  50. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1548512917737635
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320738233_The_protoscience_of_cybersecurity
  52. https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/Papers.by.Others/bunge74.pdf
  53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11569-025-00477-w
  54. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nn303929a
  55. https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-computing-skeptics
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049237X08705007
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.