Protoscience refers to historical philosophical disciplines which existed prior to the development of
scientific method, which allowed them to develop into
science proper (see
prescientific). A standard example is that of
alchemy which later became
chemistry, or that of
astrology which later became
astronomy.
By extension, "protoscience" may be used in reference to any "set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science, a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science".[1]
The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn first used the word in an essay, originally published in 1970
In any case, there are many fields — I shall call them proto-sciences — in which practice does generate testable conclusions but which nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-eighteenth century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today. In these fields, too, though they satisfy Sir Karl's [ Popper's] demarcation criterion, incessant criticism and continual striving for a fresh start are primary forces, and need to be. No more than in philosophy and the arts, however, do they result in clear-cut progress.
