8 Science, Technology and Philosophy PDF

***8*** **Science, Technology and Philosophy** *After reading this chapter should be able to do at least the following:* 1. *Differentiate Science and Technology.* 2. *Define Scientism.* 3. *Explain the need for Philosophy (in the age of Science and Technology).* We have always heard or...

***8*** **Science, Technology and Philosophy** *After reading this chapter should be able to do at least the following:* 1. *Differentiate Science and Technology.* 2. *Define Scientism.* 3. *Explain the need for Philosophy (in the age of Science and Technology).* We have always heard or read "science" and "technology" going together. And just hearing one of the two reminds us of the other. At times, it looks like they are used interchangeably. What exactly is science? What precisely is technology? Here's what some experts tell us: - **"Science** encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and **technology** is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes." (Oxford Reference, 2022). - "...the [goal](https://www.diffen.com/difference/Goal_vs_Objective) of science is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake while the goal of technology is to create products that solve problems and improve human life. Simply put, technology is the practical application of science." (Diffen, n.d.). - "If the [goal ](http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-aim-and-goal/)of science is the pursuit of knowledge for science's sake, technology aims to create systems to meet the needs of people. Science has a quest of explaining something, while technology is leaning more [towards ](http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-towards-and-toward/)developing a use for something." (DB.net, 2022) From the above descriptions, we can infer this (one can make other inferences, of course): We can indeed distinguish science and technology but in truth we cannot, or should not, separate them. Technology is dependent on science, and without technology, science would be in effect just increasing human knowledge and not transforming human life. Now, who would deny the fact that today's science and technology have radically transformed us, human beings (even non-human beings and the physical universe)? Pause here for a minute or two and think of the many radical ways by which science and technology have changed our lives. Not a few years ago, PMA cadets would line up for long in the library to check out books and magazines. Today how many cadets and instructors need the books and magazines in the PMA library? Everyone has a laptop computer or a cell phone! And some instructors used to complain about the dangerous-to-one's-health chalk dust from the blackboard. Today we have classroom LED monitors. But, let us ask, have science and technology truly improved the quality of people's lives? PMA cadets have debated that question for some years in their Philosophy classes. Here are the most common answers to the question this writer has heard from cadets: - Science and technology have improved the quality of human life. - Science and technology have ruined the quality of human life. - Science and technology have only to a certain degree improved the quality of human life. - Science and technology have neither improved nor ruined the quality of human life. It is those behind science and technology---the human beings who use it---who are to be praised or blamed for the effects of science and technology. In this writer's view (which is not God's eye-view!) contemporary science and technology have indeed improved much of life---the speed of communication, transportation, and the production of various gadgets has amazingly increased, such that human beings have now supposedly more time for rest and creation, more time for reflection, more time for creating and maintaining relationships, more time for listening and caring, and even more time for worship. But, is that true? Let's go more specific to make our discussion more practical. Has your family relationships significantly improved this year because now you have the latest gadget---say, a digital washing machine, laptop computer, cell phone, TV, etc.? Have your dad and mom become remarkably "sweeter," or have you become amazingly closer to them because today you have Facebook and Instagram, or because now you can video call each other? Some may readily answer these questions with a *Yes*. But most probably many people would respond, *I doubt* or simply *No*. **Science and technology have limits** Science and technology, like any other creation of finite, human beings have limitations. Science and technology have solved many human problems, but these cannot ---contrary to what some think, as we shall explain below---solve all human ills. (Or, if we want to be precise: Human beings have solved many human problems with the use of modern or contemporary science and technology but have not and would not solve all problems with their use of science and technology). As one PMA officer, now a retired general, said in one of our Philosophy course-conferences (we were then talking about the AFP Modernization program and the PMA curriculum), "The latest tank---great. The latest jet fighter---great. But the pilot behind the jet must also be 'modernized'." And by "modernized" he meant an educated, well-transformed person, a pilot of impeccable integrity. Can science and technology "modernize" the person behind the tank or jet? Well, someone (Hughes, 2018) has recently written: "science can tell us how things are empirically, but it can't prescribe how we should then live.... In short: science helps us live longer, whereas philosophy helps us live better." Similarly, the historian and philosopher William Durant (1961, xxvii) wrote: "Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war; but only wisdom---desire coordinated in the light of all experience---can tell us when to heal and when to kill." He further said, "Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation, cannot save us from havoc and despair. Science gives us knowledge, but only Philosophy can give us wisdom." Philosophy is something we cannot do without! Invited to a Ted Talk conference, the famed late Billy Graham (2008) presented the "problems that technology has not and cannot solve." The three problems, according to him, are (1) *Human evil*. Graham asked, *why do we have wars in every generation?* "We have gone deep into the ocean and probed the galaxies but we have not successfully probed the human heart," he told his audience of business and technology experts. There's so much racism, injustice, and violence. How do we change man, so that he would not lie, cheat or steal? (2) *The problem of human suffering*. There's much suffering in the world. Modern science and technology have not prevented WW1 and WW2 (which have caused so much more human and even non-human suffering). The awesome speed in transportation and speed in communication (both produced by today's science and technology) have not prevented accidents and misunderstanding causing more suffering; (3) *Death*. After thousands of years of human existence and human thinking and effort to find the cure for death, to find the "elixir of life," people still die. A Philosophy professor, Brian Elwood (2001, p. 61) likewise writes: "Many have observed a strange loss of meaning in our lives as technological devices replace human activities. The indomitable authority of science and the manipulations of technology seem of little help to us before this loss of meaning. They are impotent when we are confronted with nihility." Elwood is talking about, in more simple terms, the loneliness that is experienced by many around the world, including the richest people. The technological inventions have not helped to comfort and make life meaningful to many people. Furthermore, according to Elwood (2001), despite the abundance of scientific knowledge and technology today, we are still faced with so many social problems and much violence in our society. Science and technology have not help solve or minimize the many problems in our society. We have the common thinking that science is detached, neutral, and objective. But it is not. The philosopher of science of great reputation Karl Popper tells us that science is not merely a "body of facts \[but\] a collection \[of data\] dependent upon the collector's interests, upon a point of view... \[upon\] a scientific theory" (Popper, p. 259). "All scientific descriptions of facts are highly selective...." (Popper, p. 260). To see the truth of what Popper is saying, you may take a look at any thesis or dissertation or research paper in the library or online and you will notice that it has a "Theoretical/Conceptual Framework," a "Limitation of the Study," and "Definition of Terms." All these guided and directed the researcher or writer. The fact is, all scientific conclusions, descriptions and theories are partial, perspectival, and provisional. No scientist can ever arrive at the absolute, final description of reality. And thus, to believe that science is the Savior of mankind and the universe is not science, but Scientism. **What is Scientism?** Commune is a good word. But communism---well, for most us, it is a negative one. Race is another good-looking word. But racism is repulsive. Self is a pretty neutral word, but "selfism" is obviously not! The suffix -*ism* makes some words refer to extremes, to unwanted, unacceptable matters. You know the next point: science is a good thing, but scientism is not. So, what is Scientism? It is the belief that, among other things, the methods of natural science are the only legitimate methods and that all other disciplines should adopt these methods. In addition, it is the belief that (Moreland, 2018) "the hard sciences---like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy---provide the only genuine knowledge of reality," that "scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline." It is in this connection that acupuncture used to be despised by many in the West and even in the Philippines; acupuncture was thought to be non- or un-scientific. And still many Filipinos would rather buy medicine from the drugstore than use traditional medicinal herbs for medicine because the latter is "not scientific." There is no arguing that science has greatly contributed much good to human life. But science is not the Way, the Truth and the Life. Despite the many phenomenal contributions of science, it alone cannot and does not lead us to Truth and abundant life. Scientism is idolatry; it is the deification of science, which is a very human---and therefore limited, partial, and provisional---undertaking.