If it refers to our progress in understanding, what is the difference between our progress in understanding and the progress of knowledge?
He was disappointed that scientific progress has not cured the world’s ills by abolishing wars and starvation; that gross human inequality is still widespread; that happiness is not universal. My friend made a common mistake — a basic misunderstanding in the nature of knowledge. Knowledge is amoral — not immoral but morality neutral. It can be used for any purpose, but many people assume it will be used to further their favorite hopes for society — and this is the fundamental flaw. Knowledge of the world is one thing; its uses create a separate issue. To be disappointed that our progress in understanding has not remedied the social ills of the world is a legitimate view, but to confuse this with the progress of knowledge is absurd. To argue that knowledge is not progressing because of the African or Middle Eastern conflicts misses the point. There is nothing inherent in knowledge that dictates any specific social or moral application.