Toward a Deeper Science of Progress
How a Deeper Understanding of Human Cognition, Moral Development, and Collaborative Inquiry Can Ground a More Coherent, Cumulative, and Ethically Responsible Science of Progress
Introduction: The Call for a Science of Progress
In recent years, influential voices have argued that humanity needs a more systematic understanding of progress itself. In a 2019 Atlantic article, tech entrepreneur Patrick Collison and economist Tyler Cowen proposed “Progress Studies” as a new interdisciplinary endeavor to study how we advance as a society (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). They envisioned a field that would investigate successful people, organizations, cultures, and policies throughout history and distill knowledge to “improve our ability to generate useful progress in the future” (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). Crucially, Collison and Cowen emphasized that this would be a pragmatic pursuit: “Progress Studies is closer to medicine than biology: The goal is to treat, not merely to understand” (A Progress Studies Manifesto | article by Francis Jervis - Upcarta). In other words, the aim is not only to analyze progress as a historical or social phenomenon, but to actively accelerate it – much as medicine studies illness in order to cure it.
This call struck a chord. It came at a time of growing concern that technological and economic innovation had slowed and that our institutions were not keeping pace with society’s needs. The idea of a “science of progress” captured imaginations in the tech and academic communities: Could we apply the same rigor to understanding human progress that we apply to medicine or engineering? Soon after the Atlantic piece, a flurry of responses and initiatives emerged. A new online magazine called Works in Progress was launched to explore progress-related ideas, researchers started progress-focused newsletters, and communities like Jason Crawford’s Roots of Progress gained traction (Progress · Patrick Collison) (Progress · Patrick Collison). The Progress Studies movement was born.
Not everyone greeted this proposal with enthusiasm, however. Some academics pointed out that scholars in fields like economic history, development studies, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) had already been studying aspects of progress for years. A few critics reacted dismissively, caricaturing Collison and Cowen as “two tech bros” who thought they’d reinvented existing disciplines (A Progress Studies Manifesto | article by Francis Jervis - Upcarta). Others worried that talk of “progress” carried a whiff of outdated Whiggish history or uncritical techno-optimism. Yet, despite some skepticism, the conversation about progress has clearly expanded. Rather than being just a tech-world buzzword, “progress studies” has sparked serious discussions about how to blend historical insight, social science, and innovation policy into a coherent field of inquiry.
This article revisits that conversation and argues that to truly mature, the nascent science of progress needs a richer intellectual foundation. The current discourse has centered on practical questions (like how to spur innovation, or which policies foster growth) and on rallying values (such as optimism, humanism, and agency). What has been missing is a deeper philosophical and methodological framework to ground Progress Studies. Here, we propose that the ideas of the 20th-century thinker Bernard Lonergan can provide that needed depth. Lonergan’s work on human understanding, development, and civilization offers powerful concepts – from the structure of cognition and the notion of emergent progress, to the analysis of bias and the need for moral conversion – that can enrich how we study and guide progress. Before diving into Lonergan’s contributions, let us first map the landscape of the current progress discourse to see where things stand.
Mapping the Progress Discourse: From Optimism to Agency
In the wake of Collison and Cowen’s article, a small but vibrant progress community has coalesced. Leaders in this community seek not only to analyze why progress happens, but also to advocate for a more progress-friendly culture. Entrepreneur Jason Crawford, for example, has argued that the world needs “a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century,” suggesting that Progress Studies should be part of a broader progress movement dedicated to certain core ideas (Progress, humanism, agency). In an essay titled “Progress, Humanism, Agency,” Crawford outlines three foundational premises:
Progress as a fact: In the last few centuries, human well-being has improved dramatically by objective measures. This “enormous improvement in material living standards” is so striking that economic historian Deirdre McCloskey dubbed it “the Great Fact” (Progress, humanism, agency). Recognizing this fact is the starting point and motivation for Progress Studies – something “obviously went very right” in history, and it’s worth understanding how and why.
Humanism as a value: The progress movement adopts humanism, meaning that improving human lives is the ultimate goal and standard of value. Better health, knowledge, opportunity, and quality of life are seen as inherently good (Progress, humanism, agency). This counters both pessimistic narratives that civilization is on the wrong track and any romanticism that idolizes nature or the past at the expense of human well-being (Progress, humanism, agency) (Progress, humanism, agency). For progress advocates, technology and growth are desirable insofar as they enable humans to flourish.
Agency over fatalism: Progress thinkers stress that the future is malleable. Human choices and actions can shape outcomes; continued progress “is possible, but not guaranteed” (Progress, humanism, agency). Crawford emphasizes agency rather than blanket optimism: it’s not that good outcomes are assured, but rather that we have the power to achieve them if we put in the effort (Progress, humanism, agency) (Progress, humanism, agency). This stance rejects fatalistic views (e.g. “we’re doomed to stagnation” or “innovation is basically over”) and instead encourages proactive problem-solving. As he puts it, being pro-progress means believing “the new problems are often better ones to have” and that we can solve those too in turn (Progress, humanism, agency).
These themes—progress is real, progress is good for humanity, and progress depends on us—form a kind of informal consensus in the progress community. They also illustrate how the conversation has extended beyond pure analysis into the realm of values and motivation. Progress Studies, as originally conceived, was an analytical project (identifying how to accelerate progress), but it is increasingly tied to a value-driven Progress Movement that promotes pro-progress attitudes in society. Writers like Crawford have effectively written manifestos defending the moral worth of growth and innovation, pushing back against both pessimists on the left (who worry about environmental or social costs) and on the right (who lament moral decay or lost tradition) (Progress, humanism, agency) (Progress, humanism, agency).
At the same time, the practical and academic side of Progress Studies has been taking shape. New institutions and funding streams are emerging. Collison himself has been quietly supporting various pro-progress initiatives. A recent Information profile described how the Stripe co-founder is promoting a “pro-tech, pro-growth philosophy called progress studies, aiming to influence US policy” behind the scenes (Patrick Collison Dreams of an Abundance-Verse | The Information). There is talk of an “abundance agenda” in policy circles – a push to remove barriers and invest in areas like housing, energy, and biotech to make life more abundant for all. In fact, journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (both advocates of growth) have been associated with the term “abundance” in their writings, suggesting the idea is entering mainstream policy debates. We can see progress thinkers starting to intersect with governance: for instance, proposals to streamline regulations that slow down building and innovation, or efforts to increase science funding, have been championed by members of this community (Progress, humanism, agency).
Another notable development is the attempt to build institutional homes for progress studies research. Emergent Ventures (at Mercatus Center) has granted funding to progress-related projects, and think tanks like the new Progress Studies Institute (and nonprofit offshoots of Roots of Progress) are being formed. Works in Progress publishes articles examining everything from the history of the Industrial Revolution to the economics of innovation policy. In sum, what began as a suggestion in 2019 has, by 2025, taken on the contours of a real field: there are conferences, essays, debates, and a growing bibliography around the “science of progress.”
However, amidst this enthusiasm, some challenges have become clear. One challenge is intellectual coherence. As Collison and Cowen noted, knowledge about progress exists, but it’s scattered across many domains (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). Insights relevant to progress come from economics, history, sociology, psychology, political science, and more – yet these often remain siloed. For example, if we ask “Why did Silicon Valley flourish in California and not elsewhere?” or “How can we best train talented young innovators?”, the answers might involve everything from cultural norms and education psychology to network effects and venture funding models (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic) (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). Right now, Progress Studies still feels more like a loose umbrella than a unified discipline: a mash-up of economic growth theory, history of science, technological forecasting, institutional analysis, and optimism philosophy. Collison and Cowen explicitly lamented that relevant scholarship “takes place in a highly fragmented fashion and fails to directly confront some of the most important practical questions.” (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). In other words, we have bits and pieces, but no integrating framework.
A second challenge is methodological rigor. If Progress Studies aims to be “closer to medicine,” it needs to develop reliable methods to test hypotheses and recommend interventions (A Progress Studies Manifesto | article by Francis Jervis - Upcarta). Medicine, as a science, relies on clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and bio-statistical methods. What is the equivalent for Progress Studies? How do we know if a policy truly causes more innovation, or if a cultural change truly spurs progress? The field will need to borrow methods from social sciences, but also perhaps invent new ones suited to the complex, long-term, and normative nature of progress. This raises questions about how to make Progress Studies cumulative and evidence-based.
Finally, there’s the question of philosophical depth. Thus far, Progress Studies has been driven by a fairly straightforward philosophy inherited from the Enlightenment: faith in reason, science, and human betterment. But digging deeper, one encounters hard questions: What exactly is progress? Is it purely economic growth and tech innovation, or does it include moral and cultural advancement? How do we evaluate progress (e.g. utilitarian gains vs. distribution vs. other values)? What are the ethical implications of accelerating change? And how do human cognitive biases or social structures impede progress? Grappling with such questions suggests that Progress Studies would benefit from engaging with deeper currents in epistemology, ethics, and even theology. This is where Bernard Lonergan enters the picture.
Introducing Bernard Lonergan: A Thinker for Human Progress
Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) was a Canadian philosopher, theologian, and economist who devoted much of his life to understanding how humans know and how civilizations advance (or fail to advance). Though not widely known in the “progress studies” circle, Lonergan’s work directly addresses many of the foundational issues we’ve identified: the unity of knowledge across disciplines, the conditions for authentic progress, the problems of bias and breakdown, and methods for synthesizing insights from different fields. In particular, two of Lonergan’s books – Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (1957) and Method in Theology (1972) – contain a wealth of ideas highly relevant to a science of progress.
Why turn to Lonergan? One reason is that he offers an integrated view of human development. Lonergan was deeply concerned with the question of how cumulative advances happen in science, culture, and society at large. He studied historical cases of progress (and decline) and sought a pattern in them. But unlike many philosophers of history, Lonergan didn’t propose a grand deterministic law or simple stage theory. Instead, he rooted progress in the very dynamics of human cognition and decision-making – in how we gain insights and choose to act on them. This approach connects the personal (how an individual thinks and grows) with the civilizational (how societies progress over time). For a field like Progress Studies, which ultimately rests on human creativity and choice, Lonergan’s linking of the micro (cognitive) and macro (social) levels is extremely valuable.
Another reason is Lonergan’s focus on overcoming fragmentation of knowledge. He observed that modern academia had become highly specialized and that this made it difficult to tackle big, complex questions. In Method in Theology, Lonergan introduced the idea of “functional specialties” – essentially a structured workflow to allow diverse scholars to collaborate on common projects (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). While he applied this to theology, the approach is general: break down inquiry into stages (e.g. research, interpretation, history, dialectic, foundations, policy, systematics, communications) so that researchers with different skills can contribute in a coordinated way (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). This is analogous to assembling a team where each member performs a unique function (like in a well-run project). The key is that all share an overarching method and goal, so their work connects. Such an approach could be a model for Progress Studies, guiding how to organize a truly interdisciplinary science of progress.
Finally, Lonergan delved into questions of value, meaning, and belief in relation to progress. He recognized that human progress isn’t just a technical matter of innovation; it also has moral and spiritual dimensions. People and societies can advance technologically yet fall into “social decline” due to egoism, injustice, or loss of purpose. Lonergan analyzed how cultural maturation and moral conversion are integral to authentic progress – ideas resonant with recent discussions on whether our progress is sustainable or hollow without corresponding moral growth. In essence, Lonergan offers tools to think about progress in a holistic way: unifying facts and values, science and humanity, analysis and ethics.
In the next sections, we will dive into Lonergan’s core ideas and see how they can deepen Progress Studies. We will explore his model of human cognition (a cycle of experiencing, understanding, judging, and deciding) and how it underpins discovery and innovation. We’ll examine his concept of emergent probability and the dialectic of progress and decline, which together describe how progress tends to occur – and how it can go wrong. We’ll discuss Lonergan’s theory of bias (personal and social) as a key impediment to progress, and his prescription of self-appropriation and the transcendental precepts (“Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible”) as a discipline to combat bias. We’ll also connect Lonergan’s idea of functional specialization to the coordination problem in Progress Studies, and bring in his notion of intellectual, moral, and religious conversion as transformations that unlock new levels of progress. Throughout, we aim to translate Lonergan’s often abstract terms into the context of modern innovation and progress studies, showing their practical relevance.
Lonergan’s Framework: How Humans Progress in Knowledge and Society
Cognition as the Engine of Progress: Experience, Understanding, Judgment, Decision
At the heart of Lonergan’s thought is a simple but profound observation: progress starts in the mind. Every breakthrough – whether a scientific discovery, a technological invention, or a solution to a social problem – begins with someone having an insight. Lonergan’s Insight was devoted to analyzing exactly how insight works. He described human knowing as a structured process with four key steps:
Experience: We encounter data – through our senses or through introspection. This is the raw experiential level (observing a phenomenon, reading about a problem, etc.). Lonergan would say “Be attentive” at this stage, soak in the data.
Understanding: We ask questions about the data. We look for patterns or hypotheses – this is the eureka moment of insight when a possible explanation or idea forms. (“Be intelligent,” he advises, i.e. seek to understand.) This stage yields a conceptual insight or an idea of “what might be going on.”
Judgment: We then test or verify our understanding. Is the idea true? Does it fit the evidence? We marshal further evidence or run experiments. Lonergan pairs this with “Be reasonable” – weigh the evidence carefully. If the insight withstands scrutiny, we affirm it as knowledge (judgment of fact).
Decision: Finally, knowing alone is not enough; we decide what to do with this new knowledge. This is the stage of deliberation, choice, and action. It corresponds to “Be responsible” – use knowledge for good ends and take ownership of consequences. A decision might be to apply the insight (e.g. build a new device, implement a policy) or sometimes not to, if it’s deemed harmful.
This cognitional structure – experience → understanding → judgment → decision – is Lonergan’s model of how humans naturally inquire and learn (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). It’s not a rigid formula, but a flexible pattern recognizable in everything from everyday problem-solving to major scientific research. How is this relevant to Progress Studies? Because it reminds us that every act of progress (inventing, improving, discovering) is driven by this cycle of inquiry. If we want to systematically accelerate progress, we should ensure each part of this cycle is functioning well in our society. Are people (and institutions) being attentive to real needs and anomalies, or are they ignoring inconvenient data? Are we fostering understanding – e.g. educating people to ask good questions and think creatively? Are we testing ideas rigorously (judgment), rather than letting hype or bias prevail? And do we have the will and ethics to make responsible decisions based on what we know?
One useful implication of Lonergan’s model is that it highlights points of failure that can stall progress. For instance, consider the phenomenon of a “flight from understanding,” where individuals or groups avoid asking hard questions or facing facts because the answers might be uncomfortable. Lonergan observed that it’s all too easy to short-circuit the process between experience and understanding – essentially choosing not to seek insight (due to prejudice, fear, complacency, etc.). This kind of avoidance is deadly for progress: if we don’t ask “Why is productivity slowing down?” or “How can we cure this disease?” because the answers might challenge vested interests or assumptions, then progress grinds to a halt. Likewise, we might fail at the judgment step – e.g. accepting a plausible-sounding idea without proper evidence (wishful thinking), which can lead to pursuing false paths. Or we might fail at the decision step – having good knowledge but lacking the courage or coordination to act on it (as in knowing a certain policy would help but politically not implementing it).
Lonergan’s prescription for keeping the engine of progress running is what he called the transcendental precepts: “Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible.” These are essentially habits of mind that each of us – and by extension our institutions – must cultivate to achieve authentic understanding and progress (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). They sound simple, even banal, but think how often they are violated in practice. A bureaucracy might ignore pertinent data (violating attentiveness). A research community might get locked into a prevailing theory and stop looking for new explanations (failing to be truly intelligent in Lonergan’s sense of inquisitive). Public discourse might elevate emotion and propaganda over reasoned judgment (failing reasonableness). Corporations or governments might pursue short-term gains while shirking responsibility for long-term impacts. According to Lonergan, when we consistently honor all four precepts, the result is cumulative progress – a virtuous cycle of discovery and improvement. When we violate them, we invite decline. We will return to this dialectic of progress versus decline shortly.
One more concept from Lonergan’s epistemology is worth noting: self-appropriation. This is the process of coming to understand one’s own thinking. Lonergan believed that each person can (and should) reflect on how they themselves inquire – noticing how an insight flashes in the mind, how we then double-check things, how we feel the pull to take action or ignore something. By doing so, we appropriate the cognitional structure personally, meaning we take ownership of it. Why does this matter? Because having a mindful awareness of how we know makes us better at knowing. It makes us less likely to fool ourselves and more likely to spot our biases. In a sense, self-appropriation is like metacognitive training for innovators and thinkers. For Progress Studies, encouraging self-appropriation could mean educating futurists, scientists, and policymakers to be deeply aware of their own thought processes and biases. Lonergan went so far as to say that such self-knowledge could provide a common foundation for disparate fields: if everyone understands the basic “normative pattern of cognitional operations,” then researchers from different disciplines can more easily collaborate and trust each other’s work (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). They have a shared method at the level of thought itself. While abstract, this idea speaks to the fragmentation problem in progress research – a shared epistemology could undergird a more unified approach.
Emergent Probability: Cumulative Change and the Conditions for Progress
Moving from how individuals gain insights to how societies evolve, Lonergan offers the concept of emergent probability. This idea, developed in Insight, is essentially a vision of the universe as a layered, self-developing order. In plain terms, emergent probability means that as changes occur, they open up new possibilities, and over time more complex forms can emerge given the right conditions. It’s a marriage of law and chance: natural laws govern what’s possible, but whether higher forms actually emerge depends on probabilities and conditions being met cumulatively (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf).
An example: Think of how life emerged on Earth. The laws of chemistry made life possible but did not guarantee it. Over millions of years, various chemical combinations occurred by chance; once a self-replicating molecule formed (an event of enormous improbability but not impossibility), it created new conditions (e.g. the presence of replicators). Those new conditions increased the probability of more complex structures (cells, organisms) emerging. Each new level (DNA, cells, multicellular life, intelligent life, etc.) builds on the previous and also changes the “game board” for what can happen next. Lonergan generalized this pattern to all sorts of progress: progress occurs as a series of emergent steps, each of which both depends on previous developments and creates new opportunities for further development (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf).
In human history, we see a similar pattern. The Neolithic agricultural revolution didn’t guarantee the rise of cities and civilization, but it made those possible (food surplus enabled specialization). Once cities and writing emerged, they in turn created conditions for further inventions (like mathematics, legal systems, etc.). The Industrial Revolution built on prior scientific and craft knowledge, and then unleashed new technical possibilities at an accelerating rate. At each stage, progress isn’t automatic – it requires the right insights at the right time, and it can stall or regress – but over the long sweep, we can view it as a compound process, where “change begets further change” (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf).
Lonergan’s emergent probability gives Progress Studies a framework for thinking about historical contingency and momentum. It resonates with the way economic historians talk about general-purpose technologies (like steam power or electricity) opening up vast new avenues. It also aligns with modern complex systems theory: progress is path-dependent and builds on itself, yet is not strictly deterministic. There are probabilities involved – e.g., what were the chances that the Industrial Revolution would start in 18th-century Britain specifically? Many enabling factors had to coincide (coal deposits, a scientific culture, political stability, etc.). One could say Britain in 1700 had a higher emergent probability for an industrial breakthrough than, say, any region in 1300, because centuries of prior progress had raised the odds.
Why is this important? Because it suggests that one way to foster future progress is to intentionally create conditions that increase the probabilities of breakthroughs. This is implicitly what Collison and Cowen were asking: “Can we deliberately engineer conditions most hospitable to advancement?” (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). Lonergan would frame it as: we cannot script specific discoveries to happen on schedule, but we can improve the fertility of the environment for insights. That might mean investing broadly in education and research (to generate more “trials” for insights), maintaining economic and political stability (so innovations aren’t snuffed out by chaos), and encouraging connectivity and open exchange of ideas (so that recombinations can occur). It’s akin to tending a garden for innovation – you water the soil, ensure sunlight, but you cannot exactly predict which plant will bloom, only that something is more likely to.
Another aspect of emergent probability is that it acknowledges unevenness in progress. As the Atlantic article noted, progress has been highly concentrated in certain places and times (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic) (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). Lonergan’s view would interpret these as instances where the local conditions sharply raised the probability of emergent steps. For example, why Renaissance Florence in art, or why Silicon Valley in the 20th century for tech? Likely because a confluence of prior developments and social conditions made those hotspots particularly ripe (“loaded with potential”) for progress. Progress Studies examines such cases to extract lessons. Lonergan gives a conceptual language: such places had a rich lattice of schemes of recurrence (institutions, practices, talents) that allowed progressive cycles to reinforce each other. If we want to replicate those successes, we need to understand and recreate key elements of those emergent-friendly ecosystems.
In summary, Lonergan’s notion of emergent probability enriches the science of progress by stressing cumulative causation and probabilities rather than simple linear cause-effect. It tells us to look at long chains of developments and the set of conditions that undergird each link. Progress is not just a collection of isolated genius moments; it’s an evolving network, where each innovation alters the landscape for future ones. Progress Studies can adopt this view to better model the dynamics of growth and innovation over time.
The Dialectic of Progress and Decline: How Bias Derails Development
While Lonergan was optimistic about the human capacity for progress, he was equally concerned with understanding decline. History unfortunately provides many examples not only of progress stalled, but of regress: societies collapsing, knowledge being lost, growth reversing into stagnation or worse. Lonergan sought to explain these tragic downturns. His analysis revolves around the concept of bias – systematic distortions in the way people think and act that accumulate and undermine progress.
Lonergan identified several types of bias:
Dramatic bias: a psychological self-deception where an individual refuses to face certain insights because they threaten his self-image or feelings. (In modern terms, personal delusion or denial.)
Individual egoism: bias where a person prioritizes their own immediate interests in a way that ignores broader or long-term considerations (selfishness overcoming rationality).
Group bias: similar distortion at a social level, where loyalty to one’s group (nation, class, sect) leads to unfairness or blindness toward others. Group bias can lock in policies that benefit one faction at the expense of the common good, sowing seeds of social decay (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf).
General bias of common sense: perhaps Lonergan’s most incisive point: everyday common sense, for all its value, has a bias against long-term and theoretical insight. People prefer quick fixes and short-term gains; they often dismiss intellectuals or visionaries warning of future consequences. This bias means society underinvests in science, foresight, and big-picture thinking, until a crisis forces painful change.
The dialectic of progress and decline arises from the interaction of these biases with the processes of progress. When the transcendental precepts (be attentive, intelligent, reasonable, responsible) are followed, progress tends to flourish (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). But biases lead people to violate one or more of those precepts. For example, group bias might cause a government to ignore the ideas of a minority group, wasting potential talent (failing attentiveness to all data points). Or general bias might cause a business to reject a new invention because it doesn’t see immediate profit (failing intelligence/imagination). Over time, these biased choices accumulate and start corrupting the whole system. Lonergan vividly describes how a persistent “flight from understanding” (society turning away from inconvenient truths) can create “objectively absurd situations” – problems that pile up due to willful ignorance (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf). Eventually the weight of unresolved problems can lead to social breakdown or a crisis that forces a painful correction.
A concrete historical example: In the late Roman Empire, we see increasing corruption (moral decline), economic troubles, and a failure of leadership to reform – despite knowledge that some policies (like over-taxation, debasement of currency) were hurting the empire, short-term biases kept them going. The result was a slow decline into collapse. Or consider a modern example: climate change. Arguably, our global inaction for decades was fueled by various biases – oil companies protecting their interest (group/individual bias), the public’s reluctance to change lifestyle (general bias for short-term comfort), even denial of scientific data (dramatic bias at a societal scale). The accumulating greenhouse gases don’t care about our biases – eventually reality bites back, and by the time we seriously act, some damage is irreversible. This fits Lonergan’s model where unchecked bias “distorts the process of cumulative change and brings to birth a host of social and cultural problems.” (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf)
Lonergan’s key point is that decline is not just bad luck or external shock – it often has internal cognitive and moral causes. Societies decline insofar as they deviate from the norms of authentic understanding and responsibility. And because people can persist in biased thinking (in part because bias can feel satisfying – telling us what we want to hear), declines can become self-reinforcing. Lonergan even talks about “the longer cycle of decline” where a society doubles down on common-sense solutions and ignores the need for deeper values or ideas, leading to a vicious cycle that only a major turnaround (conversion) can break (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf).
For Progress Studies, this is a crucial insight: it’s not enough to identify how to drive progress; we must also identify how progress gets stuck or reversed due to human failings. Any science of progress must thus include a theory of innovation failures, institutional inertia, and collapse. We see this recognized in some modern literature (for instance, why did the scientific revolution happen in Europe and not elsewhere – some point to cultural/political stagnation in once-great civilizations like imperial China or the Ottoman Empire). Lonergan would encourage progress scholars to analyze those cases in terms of bias and breakdown of the transcendental imperatives. Perhaps progress stalled in some societies because certain elites felt threatened by new knowledge (a failure of intellectual openness leading to censorship or conservatism). Or because short-term crises led to abandoning long-term investments (lack of responsibility to the future).
The hopeful side of Lonergan’s dialectic is that decline is avoidable if recognized, and even reversible. But reversal demands what he calls conversion, which we’ll discuss soon. Before that, let’s reflect on how the progress community today could incorporate the lesson of bias. Jason Crawford’s core values implicitly do this: humanism counters a kind of anti-human bias (the view that humans are the problem, whereas humanists say humans are the solution), and agency fights fatalism (which is a bias of thinking nothing can change). But Lonergan pushes us to be on guard for subtler biases even within a pro-progress mindset: e.g., the bias of technological solutionism (thinking only tech, not ethical reform, can solve problems), or the bias of our own cultural perspective (maybe progress studies itself has Western or elite biases that overlook insights from other cultures or classes). A Lonergan-influenced Progress Studies would be more self-critical in this way, always asking “Are we refusing any understanding? Are we rationalizing something comfortable rather than facing the real causes?” This self-scrutiny is healthy if we want our progress thinking to truly succeed and not inadvertently create new failures.
Self-Appropriation and the Transcendental Precepts: Cultivating Insightfulness
We touched on self-appropriation earlier as the personal grasp of one’s own cognitive processes. Let’s delve a bit deeper, because Lonergan saw this as a cornerstone of intellectual development. In Insight, he actually invites the reader to perform exercises of understanding their own acts of insight, so that by the end, the reader not only learns Lonergan’s philosophy but also becomes a better thinker. This pedagogy could be informative for how we train future “progress scholars” or innovators.
Why does self-appropriation matter for progress? Think of it this way: if progress depends on creative, truth-seeking, responsible minds, then empowering people to use their minds well is a direct lever to more progress. Self-appropriation produces a kind of intellectual humility and authenticity. You become aware of both your power (you can know truth and make decisions) and your limitations (you are prone to bias and error at each step). It encourages continuous application of the transcendental precepts: you catch yourself when you’re not being fully attentive or when you’re jumping to a conclusion that isn’t reasonable. In a sense, self-appropriation is a method of mental self-improvement that makes one a more effective agent of progress.
In a collective context, if more individuals in an organization or society practice this mindful inquiry, the overall decision-making improves. Imagine a research lab culture where everyone is explicitly aware of the cognitional cycle: junior scientists are trained not just in lab techniques but in how to question fruitfully and how to double-check assumptions; managers make sure that when a result is found, the team doesn’t stop at understanding but also thinks through the implications (judgment) and follows through (decision). Such a culture would likely be more innovative and also more rigorous. Or take policymaking: A self-appropriating policy analyst might better recognize when their ideological bias is skewing their interpretation of data, and then correct course, leading to sounder policy proposals.
Lonergan’s transcendental precepts (be attentive, intelligent, reasonable, responsible) are like an ethical-epistemic mantra. They are norms that guide the process of knowing and acting. In a Progress Studies curriculum, one could imagine teaching these as fundamental principles. They are not controversial like some philosophical tenets; they’re commonsensical yet profound when taken seriously. We might compare them to the principles of the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, test, conclude) but broadened to all forms of understanding and imbued with a moral element (“responsible” brings in ethics). The progress community already values rationality and truth-seeking; Lonergan’s framing simply systematizes those values and ties them to the act of progress itself. As Lonergan writes, when people faithfully observe these precepts, their cumulative improvements amount to genuine progress (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). But if these norms are widely ignored, society drifts — or marches — towards decline (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf).
In practical terms, Progress Studies could incorporate Lonergan’s insights by studying cognitive psychology and bias more explicitly. Behavioral economics and psychology in recent decades have catalogued many biases (confirmation bias, status quo bias, etc.). Lonergan’s work prefigures this by providing a philosophical account of why bias occurs (a withdrawal from the unconditional commitment to truth and value). Progress scholars might, for example, want to explore interventions that help correct biases in innovation systems. Could there be “institutional self-appropriation”? Perhaps mechanisms like independent review boards, prediction markets, red-team exercises, or scenario planning play a role in forcing attentiveness to things an organization might overlook. Even simple habits like pre-mortems (imagining a plan’s failure to find weaknesses) echo Lonergan’s ideals of being intelligently critical and not overconfident in one’s understanding.
The notion of intellectual honesty and courage also comes into play. Being attentive and intelligent includes the willingness to question orthodoxies. Many great leaps forward in science required going against what everyone believed (think of Wegener’s continental drift theory, initially dismissed, or the Wright brothers going against experts who said heavier-than-air flight was impossible). A Lonergan-inspired mindset would instill that questioning is good, so long as one then is reasonable in assessing the answers. It’s a balance between open-minded creativity and rigorous evaluation.
Functional Specialization: A Blueprint for Collaborative Inquiry
One of Lonergan’s most pragmatic contributions is his idea of dividing intellectual labor into functional specialties. In Method in Theology, faced with the enormous task of doing theology in the modern world, he proposed breaking the process into eight stages: (1) Research (gather data), (2) Interpretation (understand the data’s meaning), (3) History (place the data/interpretations in context of what actually happened), (4) Dialectic (compare and evaluate conflicting accounts), (5) Foundations (establish shared commitments or viewpoint in light of conversions), (6) Doctrines (formulate the results as truth statements or teachings), (7) Systematics (integrate those truths into a coherent system), and (8) Communications (express and apply them in ways relevant to people now) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf).
While this was aimed at theology, the underlying logic can be generalized to any complex field, including a potential “science of progress.” It’s essentially a pipeline for knowledge synthesis. Today, progress research is scattered: historians do history, economists build growth models, futurists speculate, etc., often without much coordination. A functional specialization approach would ask: what set of tasks are needed to produce actionable knowledge about progress, and how can we arrange experts to tackle those in sequence or in coordinated loops?
For instance, a rough analogy in Progress Studies:
Research: Assemble the empirical data on progress – historical datasets, case studies of innovations, metrics of well-being, etc. (Some of this exists across economics and history, but more could be gathered.)
Interpretation: Analyze these data for patterns or causal stories (e.g., why did certain regions progress faster? How did specific inventions come about? Interpret the “story” behind the data).
History (or Analysis): Establish a factual narrative of human progress – what happened when and where – to ground any theory.
Dialectic: Address discrepancies or debates. Progress studies has internal debates: e.g., is progress primarily driven by great individuals (“heroes”) or by institutions and culture? Different schools (some may emphasize culture, others economics) need a dialectical compare-and-contrast to surface assumptions and perhaps work towards a synthesis.
Foundations: Here, progress scholars would reflect on their own standpoints and values. This is akin to Lonergan’s idea of conversion – scholars clarify why progress is good, what “progress” means beyond GDP (incorporating moral/intellectual conversion perhaps to ensure they aren’t implicitly biased towards say only material metrics). The outcome is a set of shared foundational values or epistemic principles for the research community (for example, a commitment to humanism, or an agreement that empirical validation is crucial – whatever fundamental stances they take).
Doctrines (or Theories): Formulate theories or models of progress that incorporate the findings so far. This could be statements like: “High social trust is necessary for progress” or “The rate of scientific discovery correlates with the density of collaboration networks,” etc. Essentially, propose the “laws” or generalizations of progress.
Systematics: Integrate those various propositions into a coherent framework or perhaps even a formal model. This might be where a comprehensive theory of progress or a simulation model is built, tying together economic, cultural, technological factors in one structure.
Communications (and Policy): Communicate the findings in accessible forms and recommend applications. This is critical – translating the knowledge into advice for policymakers, educators, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and the general public. Without this final step, the “treatment” aspect of Progress Studies would fail; great ideas must be communicated and implemented to actually yield progress.
By structuring work this way, Progress Studies can ensure that it's covering all bases: empirical, theoretical, normative, and practical. It also means people with different expertise (data science vs. philosophy, say) can contribute at different stages but still be part of a single endeavor. Lonergan insisted that the functional specialties are “successive parts of one and the same process” and that each is incomplete without the others (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). This prevents, for example, theorists from floating off into speculation unrelated to historical facts, or data collectors from drowning in facts without drawing any broader lessons.
In our context, one could argue something like this is already loosely happening – e.g., economic historians gather data, then economists try to create growth theory, then think tanks communicate policy ideas. But it’s not self-consciously coordinated or methodologically unified. Adopting a Lonerganian method would bring a common language and sequence to these efforts, likely improving synergy.
For instance, imagine an institute of progress studies explicitly organized with departments corresponding to these stages – a historical analysis unit, a modeling unit, a normative/ethical unit, etc., all feeding into each other. The historians flag puzzles that economists then try to model; the ethicists in foundations challenge the modelers to include quality-of-life metrics, not just output; the communicators take the refined insights to governments or industries. This could enhance both the rigor and impact of the research.
In sum, functional specialization could transform Progress Studies from a loose interdisciplinary mash-up into a structured collaborative enterprise, much as large engineering projects or medical research trials are structured. It’s a meta-method for managing complexity. And crucially, Lonergan notes that his eightfold scheme is a model, not a rigid formula (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) – it can be adapted. The spirit is what matters: differentiating distinct tasks and ensuring they are linked in a cumulative process. For a field as broad as progress, that might be exactly what is needed to avoid fragmentation (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic) and achieve practical results.
Conversion and Values: The Human Factor in Authentic Progress
Lonergan uses the term conversion to describe a profound shift in a person’s orientation – intellectual, moral, or religious. While the term might suggest a religious context (and indeed Lonergan discussed religious conversion at length), the underlying idea is broader: conversion is a fundamental change in how one sees the world and oneself, which in turn affects one’s priorities and behavior (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). In the context of progress, conversion can be thought of as the transformations necessary for individuals and societies to embrace authentic progress rather than hollow or destructive versions of it.
Intellectual conversion in Lonergan’s sense means coming to fully value truth and reason. It is the move from a mindset dominated by say, appearances or ideology, to one that genuinely seeks to know reality as it is. Someone intellectually converted won’t dismiss evidence that contradicts their beliefs; they won’t say “truth is relative, who cares.” They become devoted to honest inquiry. For progress, this is key: a culture of intellectual conversion is one where science and knowledge can thrive, where people are willing to change their minds when confronted with new facts. It’s basically the opposite of a dogmatic or anti-intellectual culture. One could argue that the Enlightenment itself was a broad intellectual conversion in European society – an awakening to the power of reason and empirical science, which set the stage for unprecedented progress. Progress Studies might implicitly aim for such conversion by promoting STEM education, critical thinking, etc. Lonergan just provides the language to explicitly call it what it is: a necessary turning toward the light of truth.
Moral conversion is the shift from self-centered value to truly objective value. Lonergan characterizes it as moving from “what is good for me” to “what is truly good (perhaps for me, but also for others and for its own sake)”. In other words, a morally converted person recognizes an ethical order and commits to value things like justice, honesty, beneficence even when they conflict with their egoistic desires. Why is this relevant to progress? Because a society of morally unconverted individuals might make short-term gains but will sow seeds of destruction (through corruption, exploitation, neglect of the vulnerable, etc.). Sustainable progress that improves humanity requires a moral compass – otherwise technological power can be misused or progress for one group comes at the misery of another (which arguably isn’t true progress). Many in the progress community talk about progress for all or humanistic progress; moral conversion is what aligns individual ambition with the common good. For example, if business leaders are morally converted, they are more likely to innovate in ways that help society broadly, not just profit by externalizing costs. If citizens are morally converted, they may support policies that invest in the future rather than just demand immediate benefits. Lonergan sees moral conversion as crucial to resolve the problem of bias: only a deeply moral commitment can overcome the pull of selfishness or partisan groupthink.
Religious conversion, in Lonergan’s framework, is an opening up to ultimate meaning and love (often expressed through faith in God or a higher purpose). To secular ears, this might sound unrelated to material progress. However, consider it more generally as existential meaning. Societies derive motivation and resilience from having a sense of higher purpose or shared ultimate values. In the 19th century, many believed in a kind of quasi-religious idea of Progress – almost a faith that improving the world was a mission. That gave people the will to work for things they wouldn’t see finished in their lifetimes (building cathedrals of progress like universities, infrastructure, cures for diseases). Arguably, one challenge today is a certain cynicism or lack of higher purpose; many enjoy comforts of progress but don’t feel inspired by a larger narrative of it. Lonergan’s notion of religious conversion is about profound hope and love orienting one’s life. For a progress movement, tapping into something akin to that – a positive vision for humanity – is important. It need not be traditional religion, but it might be a philosophy or ethos that provides people with meaning. For example, Progress Humanism (as advocated by some) could fill this role: a belief that advancing human flourishing is a noble, almost sacred project. When people undergo that kind of conversion, they transcend narrow self-interest and work toward transcendent goals (like ending poverty, exploring the stars, etc.). Lonergan notes that conversions can happen to communities, not just individuals (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf), creating solidarity and a shared horizon of meaning.
In practical terms, Lonergan’s idea of conversion suggests that progress is not just technical, but also spiritual or moral. Collison and Cowen wrote that some might find “progress” too normative a term (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic); indeed it is normative, and Lonergan helps articulate those norms. A science of progress must ultimately answer: progress toward what? If we say “greater human flourishing,” we implicitly endorse a value. Conversion is about aligning our personal or collective mindset with those values in a lived way.
One might ask, can we incorporate something like “conversion” into an ostensibly scientific field? Perhaps not in the form of preaching, but at least by acknowledging values and worldview shifts openly. For instance, Progress Studies discussions often highlight that public attitudes (pessimism or optimism) greatly affect innovation investment and risk-taking. Shifting from a pessimistic to optimistic outlook among young people could be seen as a kind of conversion (from fatalism to hope/agency). Lonergan would say such shifts often require not just argument but personal transformation – sometimes catalyzed by inspiring experiences, mentors, or education that touches the whole person.
Moreover, Lonergan’s focus on conversion ties to his emphasis on authenticity. He talks about the authentic human being as one who is self-appropriated and converted in these ways – basically fully alive to truth, goodness, and meaning. Authentic development, then, is development led by such people or communities. Inauthentic development (which might look like progress for a while) eventually hits crises because it was built on lies, injustice, or shallowness. One could interpret some of the backlash against progress (environmental crises, social alienation in high-tech societies) as a cry for a more authentic progress, one that balances material advancements with moral and spiritual well-being. Lonergan’s framework inherently addresses that balance: progress without moral conversion is just power without guidance.
Synthesis: Integrating Lonergan with Modern Progress Science
Having outlined Lonergan’s key ideas, we can now attempt a synthesis with other frameworks and thinkers commonly referenced in progress discussions. How does Lonergan’s perspective complement or enhance what we know from, say, Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shifts, or contemporary innovation theory?
Lonergan and Popper: Karl Popper famously characterized scientific knowledge as conjectures and refutations – we progress by bold ideas and rigorous attempts to falsify them. This aligns well with Lonergan’s cognitional cycle. Lonergan’s “understanding → judgment” step mirrors Popper’s cycle of hypothesis and test (understanding produces conjectures, judgment sorts out which survive refutation). Both emphasize that knowledge grows through an iterative process of imagination disciplined by reality. One difference is Lonergan’s inclusion of the context of discovery (Popper cared more about the logic of testing, not how insights are generated, whereas Lonergan delves into how insights emerge in the first place). For Progress Studies, combining both could be powerful: encourage bold brainstorming of ideas (be intelligent/creative) and insist on strong evaluation (be reasonable/falsifiable) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). Popper also advocated for an “open society” as crucial for progress – a society that allows free criticism and change. Lonergan provides the cognitive interior: open society works because it enables many minds to be attentive and intelligent without fear. Popper’s approach, however, was quite value-neutral beyond valuing truth and freedom. Lonergan adds the dimension of responsibility – that once we know what likely works, we should act on it for the good. In a way, Lonergan completes the loop that Popper leaves open: turning knowledge into wise action.
Lonergan and Kuhn: Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea that science goes through paradigm shifts – periods of “normal science” under a reigning framework punctuated by revolutionary changes where the framework itself is replaced. How would Lonergan view this? Interestingly, Lonergan’s Insight predates Kuhn (1957 vs 1962) and already talked about how scientific development requires occasionally adopting new “higher viewpoints” that subsume old ones (for example, transitioning from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian relativity). Lonergan’s notion of intellectual conversion can be seen as what scientists undergo during a paradigm shift – they change their perspective on fundamental matters. Kuhn focused on the sociological and psychological difficulties of conversion (scientists clinging to the old paradigm until a new generation takes over). Lonergan explains why it’s hard: conversion demands letting go of bias and familiar assumptions, essentially a self-transcendence to a new worldview (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). In progress terms, many have noted that big innovations face institutional resistance, akin to Kuhn’s paradigm inertia. Lonergan’s work would advise progress proponents to anticipate and address these needed conversions. For example, pushing a radical new technology might require convincing people not just of its utility but also converting them intellectually (to see the world where this tech makes sense) and morally (to align values so the tech is used wisely). Kuhn might say paradigm shifts are somewhat irrational leaps; Lonergan would prefer they be as rational and responsible as possible, guided by self-awareness of the shift. Also, Kuhn did not elaborate on what happens after a shift in terms of society or morality, whereas Lonergan integrates those conversions too. A synthesis of Kuhn and Lonergan might yield a richer model of how not just science, but whole societies, periodically reinvent themselves to reach a new level of progress.
Human Progress and Innovation Frameworks: Modern innovation theory often talks about ecosystems, incentives, and institutions. For instance, the literature on national innovation systems points to factors like education, intellectual property laws, culture of risk-taking, etc., as determinants of innovation. How does Lonergan mesh with these? Think of Lonergan’s points as the human substratum of any system. No matter what institutions you have, if the people within them are inattentive, biased, or irresponsible, the system will underperform or even become corrupt. So Lonergan would say: by all means build good institutions (the outer frameworks), but also cultivate the inner criteria – the mindset of inquiry and integrity. His functional specialization idea could even be applied to institutional design: ensure feedback loops (like his dialectic stage implies a feedback mechanism to resolve conflicts in interpretations – analogous to having checks and balances in institutions).
Consider also the diffusion of innovations model (Everett Rogers), which outlines how new ideas spread (innovators → early adopters → majority, etc.) and what factors affect adoption. Lonergan might contribute here by highlighting the role of meaning and bias in adoption. For example, if an innovation clashes with a group’s values (maybe a cultural bias against it), no matter how useful it is, adoption will lag. Overcoming that might require a kind of moral conversion or reframing of meaning so the new idea is seen as aligned with deeper values. In modern terms, we sometimes talk about narrative and vision – getting people to buy into the story of progress. That is essentially addressing the realm of meaning, which Lonergan analyzes with concepts like realms of meaning (common sense vs theory vs transcendence) and stages of meaning in cultures (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). A new technology might exist in the “theory” realm (scientists know it works), but if it doesn’t penetrate the “common sense” realm (everyday understanding of ordinary people), it won’t diffuse. Bridging those realms is a task Lonergan’s communications stage speaks to.
We also see synergy with economists like Joseph Schumpeter, who talked about creative destruction. Lonergan’s progress-and-decline dialectic offers a nuanced take: not all destruction is creative; some is just destruction born of bias. But some dismantling of old structures is indeed necessary for higher schemes to emerge (as emergent probability suggests, sometimes an old scheme has to break to allow a new combination). The challenge is managing this so that decline in one area (say, an obsolete industry) is compensated by progress in another (a new industry) without undue suffering. That touches moral conversion (caring for those disrupted).
Lastly, Lonergan’s integrated view resonates with the emerging interdisciplinary studies of well-being and progress metrics (like the movement beyond GDP to measure progress). He would encourage multiple dimensions (economic, social, cultural, spiritual) to be considered because human development is many-sided (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). He might support something like the UN’s Human Development Index plus measures of knowledge and meaning. Indeed, his idea of “the human good” includes a hierarchy from basic needs to higher values and meanings (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf). Progress is multi-dimensional in that sense.
By synthesizing Lonergan with these thinkers, Progress Studies can gain both breadth and depth. Popper and Kuhn help frame the scientific knowledge aspect; modern economics and innovation theory cover the external mechanisms and incentives; Lonergan binds them together with a philosophy of consciousness and collaboration. The result could be a more complete Progress Studies 2.0 – one that is empirically grounded, methodologically rigorous, and philosophically rich.
Conclusion: Toward Integrated Progress – Implications for Institutions, Culture, and Inquiry
Bringing Bernard Lonergan’s insights into the fold of Progress Studies is an ambitious but potentially transformative move. It suggests that the “science of progress” will not look like a traditional science with neat lab experiments, but rather like a transdisciplinary, human-centered project – one that spans empirical research, philosophical reflection, and cultural evolution. If we take Lonergan seriously, what might be the practical implications as we try to build this field and apply it in the world?
For Institutions: We would likely design our institutions of progress (research institutes, think tanks, educational programs) to embody the principles of the cognitional cycle and functional specialization. For example, a progress research institute might internally separate teams that collect data versus those that do normative synthesis, yet ensure they regularly communicate (so no silo gets too isolated). Institutions could also bake in practices that enforce the transcendental precepts: perhaps “red team” committees to challenge assumptions (be reasonable), user research to stay in touch with ground reality (be attentive to experience), brainstorming sessions to generate hypotheses (be intelligent), and ethical review boards (be responsible). In policymaking bodies, one might create a function specifically to horizon-scan and ask long-range questions (countering the general bias of common sense that politicians often have toward only immediate issues). The culture of an organization can be explicitly shaped around valuing insight and rooting out bias – this might mean encouraging whistleblowers and dissent (to surface neglected insights), rewarding not just success but well-reasoned failures (to encourage risk-taking but thoughtful risk), and training leaders in self-appropriation so they remain humble and curious learners even as they exercise power.
For Culture and Education: A Lonergan-infused view of progress would emphasize education that fosters not just knowledge, but critical thinking, moral character, and meaning. This aligns with what many educational reformers call for, but here it’s tied to progress: if we want continuous progress, we need citizens capable of continuous learning and adaptation. Teaching the young how to learn, how to question, how to discern truth from falsehood – these are as important as any specific science or tech curriculum. Moreover, moral education (cultivating empathy, integrity, fairness) becomes crucial so that with greater power (from technology, etc.) we use it wisely. We might imagine a future “Progress Studies” course that is part history (to inspire with how far we’ve come), part futurism (to excite about what’s possible), part philosophy (to discuss values and ethics), and part cognitive science (to train good thinking habits). This would produce well-rounded individuals who can contribute to progress in any field with both creativity and conscience.
Another cultural implication is narrative. Humans are moved by stories. Lonergan’s emphasis on meaning suggests we craft a story of progress that is compelling and inclusive. The 20th century had a simple story: more science and industry leads to a better life. Today that story is challenged by issues like climate and inequality. A new story might be: progress = solving problems to empower all humanity (and maybe even to steward our planet, if we integrate environmental values). Lonergan’s humanism (though he was a Catholic thinker, his approach to values is human-centered in effect) would support a narrative where progress is about the fulfillment of human potential – intellectually, materially, morally. If societies rally around such a positive vision, it can act as the religious conversion equivalent, a shared higher purpose. Without it, progress efforts may falter due to public skepticism or lack of will.
For Inquiry and Research: The emerging field of Progress Studies can take Lonergan’s methodological cues to heart. This might involve hosting explicitly cross-disciplinary dialectic sessions where economists, historians, technologists, and philosophers hash out disagreements and find common ground – thereby avoiding fragmentation (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic). It could involve adopting open science practices, since Lonergan would favor wide communication and collaboration (his final stage, Communications, implies reaching the public too, not cloistering knowledge). Also, Lonergan’s work suggests new research questions: e.g., how do specific biases currently limit progress in different domains (perhaps a study on how regulatory capture is a form of group bias affecting progress in pharma, or how media echo chambers are a bias affecting public support for progress)? How do societies undergo moral or intellectual conversions, and can deliberate efforts trigger them? These are questions at the intersection of psychology, sociology, and history that a Lonergan-guided Progress Studies would ask. They may not yield quantifiable answers easily, but they are vital for the “science” of progress if it aims to be comprehensive.
Finally, embracing Lonergan’s vision means recognizing that progress is not inevitable. It is an achievement of following a certain normative path; it can stall or reverse if we fall off that path. This sobering truth can motivate a kind of moral urgency in Progress Studies. Just as early Enlightenment thinkers felt they were in a battle against darkness and ignorance, progress scholars might see themselves in a struggle against the forces of decline – whether that’s complacency, zero-sum cynicism, or authoritarian retrenchment. Lonergan would likely view the current moment with both concern and hope: concern, because many signals of bias and decline (polarization, disinformation, disregard for expertise) are present; hope, because recognizing these issues is the first step to redressing them, and because the tools of science and reflection we now have are powerful if properly used.
In conclusion, integrating Lonergan into Progress Studies offers a path to elevate the field into a true science and art of progress – one that is empirically informed, conceptually rigorous, ethically grounded, and spiritually inspiring. It means progress studies would not only ask “How do we get more innovation?” but also “How do we become the kind of people who consistently innovate well and wisely?” It’s a tall order, but as Lonergan might remind us, the history of progress itself is a story of humans gradually learning to ask deeper questions and broaden their understanding. By infusing progress studies with Lonergan’s insights, we continue that tradition of self-reflection in the pursuit of a better future. In doing so, we might inch closer to a world where humanity “gets better at knowing how to get better,” in the fullest sense (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic) – not just technically, but in understanding ourselves, our values, and our common destiny.
With such a foundation, the project of progress can proceed with both confidence and wisdom: confident in our ability to improve life (for that is amply demonstrated by history), and wise in recognizing the intellectual and moral discipline required to keep that improvement on track for the long run. That marriage of confidence and wisdom is precisely what a Lonerganian perspective can help us achieve – and perhaps what will distinguish a mature science of progress in the years to come.
Sources:
Collison, P. & Cowen, T. (2019). “We Need a New Science of Progress.” The Atlantic. (Introduced the concept of Progress Studies and its broad agenda) (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic) (We Need a New Science of Progress - The Atlantic)
Crawford, J. (2022). “Progress, Humanism, Agency: An Intellectual Core for the Progress Movement.” The Roots of Progress (blog). (Outlined core values of progress community) (Progress, humanism, agency) (Progress, humanism, agency)
Jervis, F. (2019). “A Progress Studies Manifesto.” ProgressStudies.org. (Response to Atlantic piece emphasizing action-oriented research and noting academic reactions) (A Progress Studies Manifesto | article by Francis Jervis - Upcarta) (A Progress Studies Manifesto | article by Francis Jervis - Upcarta)
The Information (2025). “Patrick Collison Dreams of an Abundance-Verse.” (Profile on Collison’s efforts in progress studies and policy) (Patrick Collison Dreams of an Abundance-Verse | The Information)
Lonergan, B. (1957). Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. (Cognitional theory; emergent probability; bias; etc.) (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL3_Insight.pdf)
Lonergan, B. (1972). Method in Theology. (Functional specializations; transcendental precepts; progress and decline; conversion; meaning) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf) (Lonergan_CWL14_Method in Theology.pdf)