“You can’t stop progress”

by ChatGPT-4

The claim “You can’t stop progress” is often used in discussions about technological, social, or scientific advancements. However, this statement can be problematic for several reasons:

1. Assumption of Inevitability: It implies that progress is an inevitable force that cannot be controlled or guided. This overlooks the fact that human choices and actions significantly influence the direction and nature of progress. It’s not an autonomous force but a result of deliberate decisions made by individuals, companies, governments, and societies.
2. Neglect of Negative Consequences: This statement often disregards the potential negative impacts of progress. Not all technological or social changes are beneficial, and some can lead to harmful consequences for the environment, society, and individual well-being. For instance, the environmental impacts of industrialization or the social impacts of automation on job markets are important considerations.
3. Oversimplification of Complex Issues: The concept of progress is not always clear-cut. What constitutes progress in one context or for one group might not be seen as such by others. For example, urban development might be seen as progress by some but could lead to the loss of cultural heritage or natural landscapes for others.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations: The claim overlooks moral and ethical considerations. Progress in areas like genetics or artificial intelligence raises significant ethical questions that should not be ignored in the rush to advance.
5. Resistance and Change: History shows that progress can indeed be stopped or redirected through social movements, legislation, or shifts in public opinion. Resistance to certain types of progress, like nuclear weapons or environmentally damaging practices, has led to significant policy changes and shifts in societal values.

In summary, the claim “You can’t stop progress” is an oversimplification that fails to consider the complexity of progress, its potential negative consequences, the importance of ethical considerations, and the power of human agency in shaping the course of progress.

Progress in Mathematics and Logic — I

Footnotes to Plato

[for a brief explanation of this ongoing series, as well as a full table of contents, go here]

“Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be;
and if it were so, it would be;
but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
(Lewis Carroll)

View original post 4,151 more words

Progress in Science — II

Footnotes to Plato

[for a brief explanation of this ongoing series, as well as a full table of contents, go here]

Progress in science: some philosophical accounts

I now turn to some philosophical considerations about progress in science. The literature here is vast, as it encompasses large swaths of epistemology and philosophy of science. Since what you are reading is not a graduate level textbook in philosophy of science, I will focus my remarks primarily on some recent overviews of the subject matter by Niiniluoto (2011, an expansion and update of Niiniluoto 1980) and Bird (2007, 2010), because they capture much of what I think needs to be said for my purposes here. Niiniluoto (2011) in particular will offer the interested reader plenty of additional references to expand one’s understanding on this issue beyond what is required in this chapter. Readers with a more general (i.e., less technical) interest in the history…

View original post 5,458 more words

Progress in Science — I

Footnotes to Plato

[for a brief explanation of this ongoing series, as well as a full table of contents, go here]

“The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”
(Karl Popper)

View original post 2,787 more words