The Path to Innovation: A Case for Scientific Instrumentalism

Written by Alice Song
Edited by Daisy Hong
Cover Image by Linda Xu

Curiosity is deeply embedded in human nature. Humans are inquisitive and observant creatures that tend to look beyond face value.  These very traits allow humanity to thrive and differentiates us from other animals. As we observe our environment and continuously ask questions based on our observations, we learn about how our world functions.

Over the years, our knowledge of the natural processes and phenomenons of the world have grown exponentially, which – naturally – led to overlaps and contradictions. Some scientists push the boundaries further and test the validity of seemingly valid scientific theories, in the process, ruling out theories that are factually untrue and leaving us with a singular true theory.

The history of theories pertaining to how traits are passed down through heritage is able to demonstrate that theories are constantly evolving. The first genetic theory is the Hippocratic Theory, which states that the traits we acquire throughout life are able to be passed down into our offspring. Centuries later, Darwin built upon the Hippocratic Theory with his Pangenesis Theory, which suggests that the environment can impact the traits that are passed down to offspring and that these traits skip a generation. Both of these theories are discredited now because of challenges posed by Aristotle and other biologists. The current widely accepted theory argues that all inherited traits are present within parents’ genetic material, but there are several lines of refutation made to this claim as well.

How does this all link back to innovation? It is only when humans question the validity of these theories that we allow for innovation and for the betterment of these theories.

Scientific realism is the belief that the current, updated scientific theories are accurate representations of the world; whether that be entities that cannot be seen such as atoms or relations between entities like the kinetic molecular theory. Many people abide by scientific realism because science allows us to perform tasks and create things that are inherently beneficial towards the human populus, so we should believe in science in order to perform more useful actions. 

Note that there are two main implications that scientific realism has. First, theories are in a constant state of revolution; over time, they become invalid and are replaced with other theories. The second implication is that theories provide us with knowledge, and with theories, we are getting one step closer to the truth, which effectively means that theories should be taken at face value.

The main issue I have with scientific realism is that it fails to provide any incentive to create new theories. If we were to simply accept that the current, updated theories are accurate representations of the world, there really isn’t any reason to challenge these theories. As long as they let us do something useful, why should we question the theories we are presented with? Although theories are only provisional to realists, there is still comparatively less incentive to find new theories if we concede to our current theories instead of questioning them. Hence, scientific realism effectively restricts scientific innovation. 

Anti-realism is the flip side of realism. It proposes that scientific theories are not accurate representations of the unobservable. Anti-realism is less intuitive compared to scientific realism because the majority of us learn scientific theories in a classroom. It would be hard to simply disprove the theories we learn because of compulsory science courses but moreover, its hard to disprove the theories that technological innovation has been built upon. The core of the anti-realist belief is empiricism; that is to say, they believe that the success of our theories cannot be credited to their validity and that these theories are only adopted for pragmatic virtues. If our current scientific theories work to explain natural phenomena, why would they be deemed as coincidences? The anti-realist belief generally lacks incentive for innovation because no matter how many theories we are able to come up with, we will never get anywhere near the truth. Neither scientific realism nor anti-realism are effective because of their own respective flaws.

In the view of these flaws, we need to achieve a balance between the anti-realism and realism, and take a nuanced stance that will allow us to question and push our current beliefs while letting us use them to the best of our ability. We need… scientific-instrumentalism! Unlike anti-realism and realism, scientific instrumentalism only values the pragmatic benefits that scientific theories have while allowing us to remain skeptical about the theories themselves. Scientific instrumentalism views theories as framework for predictions rather than as pieces of knowledge. In this sense, the main motivation of instrumentalism is inductivism (the ability to create hypotheses from specific observations). 

The benefits of instrumentalism are abundant. By following the instrumentalist mindset, we are driven to improve theories because we remain skeptical of them. We are able to expand the scientific framework while recognizing the merits that our current theories have. 

Moreover, instrumentalism is interdisciplinary. Aside from science, instrumentalism is applicable in ethics. Applying instrumentalism to the context of ethical studies will mean that moral concepts and theories are just tools for providing us with solutions and their value is determined by their function in human experience. The concept of instrumentalism is useful for fostering innovation because it allows us to use and appreciate current theories and concepts in order to create and innovate. It is with instrumentalism that innovation can thrive and lead humanity on the path for the better.