The statement argues that science is a way of finding out things that, until that point, were
unknown. It also dictates that science has always been moving forward, and stops once a ‘truth’ is
found. I disagree with science being a ‘process of continuous advancement’. ‘Science’ may be split
up into 3 main catagories, chemistry, physics and biology. Within chemistry most of the early
models of the atom were found to be incorrect, despite being given the status of ‘truth’. This was
mainly because the models were theorised, and it was only when technology caught up that they
could be proved wrong. The same is true of physics as most of Einsteins models were theorised and
many equations on which physics is based are only theories. However once they are proved wrong
the advancement does continue in order to find the ‘truth’. Biology is a study of the physical
world, and is used to help humans gain a better understanding of it. There are periods of
stagnation in biology where nothing more can be ‘discovered’ down a certain route as we do not
possess the means to work it out. For instance, the light microscope allowed the discovery of cells
and simple features, such as nuclei. It was then assumed that nothing more was in the cells than
the features that were then visible. However, the electron microscope allowed other organelles such as
RER to be discovered. Science has been used in other ways as well, for instance in ancient times
medicine was originally used only to cure simple problems, such as infection, and although
truths were discovered, by figures such as Marie Antoinette, the aim was only to cure the patient,
not to find out about the human anatomy, as it was not relevant what the ‘doctor’ wanted to do. In
conclusion I agree to the statement to an extent in that the aim is to find out ‘objective truths’,
however much of what is believed then discovered is then proved wrong.