Commonly accepted fallacies in established knowledge as an antithesis to cumulative science

Abstract

This paper critically examines the concept of cumulative science, arguing that its conventional interpretation can impede genuine intellectual progress. Whilst acknowledging that science builds upon previous work, the author contends that the uncritical perpetuation of commonly accepted, yet potentially flawed, knowledge acts as an antithesis to true scientific advancement. The article highlights a prevailing academic pressure to cite established sources to lend credibility, which can lead to the reiteration of erroneous ideas and stifle original thought. Drawing upon the theory of intertextuality, the author posits that whilst no text is entirely original, this does not negate the capacity for researchers to synthesise unique contributions from their intellectual repository. The central thesis asserts that researchers must move beyond the mere repetition of established fallacies. Instead, they should be encouraged to formulate new theoretical frameworks grounded in their own critical conceptions and experiences. This approach does not advocate for disregarding the foundational work of predecessors, "shoulders of giants" but rather calls for a more robust scientific method. True cumulative progress, it is concluded, is achieved not through the dogmatic repetition of old knowledge, but through the courage to challenge it and propose new, rigorously developed ideas that propel the scientific endeavour forward.