This thesis examines the extent to which optimism has a bearing on objectivity in scientific inquiry. It is not, however, a psychological level examination into objectivity. Rather, the discussion focuses on collective attitudes, whether in the form of science or a more general public opinion. In essence, sources of optimism at the fundamental level of scientific inquiry are articulated with a careful attempt to differentiate between attitudes about the subject (methodology) and the object of study. The antithetical thread of optimism versus pessimism is teased out with the use of a joint case study of liberalism and Stalinism. The idea of antithesis, however, is contrasted by the fact that, although mirror image ideologies, these collective attitudes share a common faith in progress (albeit through different social mechanisms). This faith in progress provides the basis for the crux of the thesis as it moves to discuss scientific methodology. There is general agreement on what good science should look like and the possibility of progressive science can be articulated. However, it is also possible to highlight the conditions for degenerative science and to further link this to a degenerative social totality in which democracy and social progress are undermined. Economics is used as a case study and it is argued that dogmatic notions on progress have proved to be a major stumbling block to objectivity in the discipline. Furthermore, the implications on the real world are serious.