University of Southern Philippines Foundation

Cebu City

College of Teachers Education, Arts and Sciences

GED 123 - Science, Technology and Society

INSTRUCTOR: Cecilia B. Booc

MODULE NO. 5: Human Flourishing

INTRODUCTION:
This module focuses on Human Flourishing as defined as being “good spirited” in the classical
Aristotelian notion. Humans generally have a notion on what it means to flourish; albeit in the
advent of science and technology, they choose to hinge their ends alongside the latter’s results.
While it is true that science equips its knowers some details about the world, its main claim to
objectivity and systematic methodology is at the very least flawed.

LEARNING OUTCOME:

At the end of this module, a student should be able to:

1. identify different component of human flourishing;

2. determine the development of the scientific method and validity of science; and
3. critic human flourishing vis-a- vis progress of science and technology to be able to define
for themselves the meaning of a good life.

LEARNING ACTIVITIES:

Learning Notes/Discussion:
  In ancient Greek society, they believe that acquiring these will surely bring the seekers
happiness, which in effect allows them to partake in the greater notion of what we call the
Good.
 As time changes, elements that comprise human flourishing changed.
 People found means to live more comfortably, explore more places, develop more products,
and make more money.
 Humans of today are expected to become “man of the world”
 Supposed to situate himself in a global neighborhood, working side by side among institutions
and the government to be able to reach a common goal.
 Competition as a means of survival has become passé.
 Coordination is the new trend.

Eastern vs Western conception regarding society and human flourishing

EASTERN CONCEPTION WESTERN CONCEPTION
 Focus is community-centric  More focused on the individual
 Individual should sacrifice  Human flourishing as an end
himself for the sake of society
 Chinese Confucian system  Aristotelian view
 Japanese Bushido  Aims for Eudaimonia as the
ultimate good
 Encourage studies of literature,
sciences, and art for a greater
cause

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY and HUMAN FLOURISHING

 Every discovery, innovation, and success contributes to our pool of human
knowledge.
 Human’s perpetual need to locate himself in the world by finding proofs to
trace the evolution.
 Elicits our idea of self- importance.
 Technology is a human activity we excel in as a result of achieving science.
(Heidegger)
 Good is inherently related to the truth
SCIENCE as METHODS and RESULTS
 Science stems from objectivity brought upon by a rigid method
 Claim to reason and empiricism
STEPS IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Observe
2. Determine the problem
3. Formulate hypothesis
4. Conduct experiment
5. Gather and analyze
6. Formulate conclusion and provide recommendation

VERIFICATION THEORY
 A discipline is science if it can be confirmed or interpreted in the
event of an alternative hypothesis being accepted.
 Premium on empiricism
 Takes into account those results which are measurable and
experiments which are repeatable.
Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a theory that her
classmate Ian likes her. Good, she thought, I like him too. But
how do I know that he likes me? She began by observing him
and his interaction with her. Several gestures she noted include
his always exchanging pleasantries with her whenever they
bump into each other, his big smile when he sees her, and him
going out of his way to greet her even when riding a jeepney.
Through these observations, she was then able to conclude that
Ian does like her because, she taught, why would anyone do
something like that for a person he does not like? As it turns
out, however, Ian is just generally happy to meet people he
knew. He had known Lea since they were in first year and
regards her a generally okay person. It is no surprise then that
upon learning that Ian basically does this to everyone, Lea was
crushed. She vowed to herself that she would never assume
again.
FALSIFICATION THEORY
 As long as ideology is not proven to be false and can best
explain a phenomenon over alternative theories, we
should accept the said theory.
 Allowed emergence of theories otherwise rejected by the
verification theory.
 Encourage research in order to determine which among
the theories can stand the test of falsification.
Ian is generally everybody’s friend. He likes to be around
people and generally aspires to become everybody’s friend .
However, there is this one girl Lea who seemed to not like him
when he is not around. Every time he waves at her, she turns
away, and when they are in the same room, she avoids his
glances. Through this he concluded that Lea does not like him
and does his best to show her that he is not a threat. He began
greeting her whenever they pass by each other at the corridor,
even going so far as calling her attention when he was in the
jeepney and saw her walking fast. When they were able to talk
to each other, he found out that Lea is just really shy and is not
accustomed to people greeting her. He then was able to
conclude that his initial impression of her not liking him is
wrong and thus said proposition is rejected.
  There is no known rule as to the number of instance that a
theory is rejected or falsified in order for it to be set aside.
 There is no assurance that observable event or
“evidences” are indeed manifestations of a certain
concept or “theories”.

Science as a Social Endeavor

Due to inconclusiveness of the methodologies previously cited, a new school of
thought on the proper demarcation criterion of science emerged. Several
Philosophers such as Paul Thagard, Imre Lakatos, Helen Longino, David Bloor, and
Richard Rorty, among others presented an alternative demarcation that explores
the social dimension of science and effectively, technology. Sciences cease to
belong solely to gownwearing, bespectacled scientists at laboratories. The new
view perpetuates a dimension which generally benefits the society. Fo instance,
far-off places in south america where many of the tribes remain uncontacted, do
not regard western science as their science. Whatever their science is, it can be
ascertained that is it no way inferior to that of globalized people’s science. Thus,
it presents an alternative notion that goes beyond the boundaries of cold, hard
facts of science and instead projects it in a different light, such as a manifestation
of shared experince forging solidarity over communities
Science and Results
For the most part, people who do not understand science are won oner when the
discipline is able to produce results. Similar to when Jesus performed miracles and
garnered followers, people are sold over the capacity of science to do stuff they
cannot fully comprehend. In this particular argument, however, science is not the
only discipline which is able to produce results-religion, luck, and human
randomness are some of its contemporaries in the field. For some communities
without access to science, they can turn to divination and superstition and still get
the same results. Science is not entirely foolproof, such that it is correct 100% of
the time. Weather reports, for one, illustrate fallibility and limitations of their
scope, as well as their inability to predict disasters. The best that can be done
during an upcoming disaster is to reinforce materials to be more calamity proof
and restore the area upon Impact. It can be then concluded that science does not
monopolize the claim for definite results.
Science as Education
Aforementioned discussion notes that there is no such thing as a singular
scientific method, offering instead a variety of procedures that scientists can
experiment with to get results and call them science. Discoveries in physics,
specifically in quantum mechanics, appeared to have debunked the idea called
intersubjectivity in reality, subscribing instead to alternative idea called
intersubjectivity. With objectivity gone, it has lost its number one credence.
Nevertheless, there still exist a repressing concept that comes about as result of
unjustified irreverence of science-our preference of science-inclined students
over those which are less adept.
There are distinct portions in entrance exams in the secondary and tertiary levels
that are dedicated to science and mathematics. In the philippines, a large
distribution of science high schoolscan be found all over the country, forging
competition for aspiring students to secure a slot and undergo rigorous science
and mathematics training based on specialized curricula. Although arguable as
these schools also take great consideration in providing holistic education by
assuring that other non-science courses are covered, adeptness in science and
mathematics are the primary condition to be admitted. This preference is also
reflected on the amount of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics)- offering schools accommodating Grades 11 and 12. Among all the
clusters being offered, STEM trumps the remaining clusters in terms of popularity
and distribution, with Accounting and Business coming in as a close second. One
might infer that there are more demand in this field as students are
preconditioned that the field would latter land them high-paying jobs and a
lucrative career after graduation.

How is science percieved by those who graduated from this field? A couple of
years ago, a student entered a class all curious and excited. When he was made to
report on Paul Feyerabend’s work How to Defend Society Against Science one
day, he looked dissident, staunchly refusing to consider the author’s ideas on
science and critiquing him instead. When asked why, he reasoned out that he had
come from a science high school and was trained to regard science in a distinct
accord. As isolated a case as it may seem, it somewhat suggests that the
aforementioned kind of academic environment has made students unwelcoming
of objections against science. Reminiscent of Paul Feyerabend’s sentiment above,
he muses how the educational system can hone and preserve students capacityto
entertain other options and decide for themselves the best among all presented.
It will thus reinforce their imagination and allow some level of unorthodoxy,
bringing forth novel discoveries that otherwise would not be considered had they
stuck to the default methodology. Innovations are brought forth by the
visionaries, not the prude legalists, and several notable figures in science even
consider themselves as outsiders.
If one is really in pursuit of human flourishing, it would make sense for them to
pursue it holistically. Simply mastering science and technology would be
inadequate if we are to, say, socialize with people or ruminate on our inner self.
Aristotle’s eudiamonic person is required to be knowledgeable about science,
among other things of equal importance. They are supposed to possess
intellectual virtues that will enable them to determine truth from flasehood or
good reasoning from poor reasoning. A true eudaimon recognizes that flourishing
requires one to excel in various dimensions, such as linguistic, kinetic, artistic, and
socio-civic. Thus, he understands that he should not focus on one aspect alone.
How Much Is Too Much?
In 2000, world leaders signed the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that
targerts eight concerns, one of which states that they should be able to forge a
global partnership for development. In as much as the institutes imposing them
do so in good faith, the primary goal to achieve growth for all might prove to be
fatal in the long run.
Economists believe that growth is the primary indicator of development, as both
go hand in hand, and has put forth their resources in trying to achieve such.
Technology has been a primary instrument in enabling them to pursue said goal,
utilizing resources, machineries, and labor. What is missing in this equation is that
growth presents an illusory notion of sustainability – the world’s resources can
only provideso much, it cannot be expected to stretch out for everybody’s
consumption over a long period of time. Moreover, growth is not infinite- there is
no preordianed ceiling once the ball starts rolling. If the MDG convention’s intent
was to get everyone in the growth in the growth ship, that ship will surely sink
before leaving the port. The same analogy applies to the capacity of nature to
accommodate us, which Joseph Hickel contemplated on, suggesting that
developed countries should not push forth more growth but instead adopt “de-
development” policies or else, everybody loses. The rapid pace of technological
growth allows no room for nature to recuperate, resulting in expliotation and
irreversible damages to nature. Right now, we are experiencing repercussions of
said expliots in the hands of man-made climate change, which would snowball
and affect majority of flora and fauna, driving half of the latter extinct in less than
a hundred year from now. If this continues in its currently alarming rate, we might
bring about our own extinction.

Assessment/Activities:
Assignment:
Individual
1. Is our reverence of science justified? Explain.
2. Were we successful so far In trying to tie down technology with that we
conceive as human flourishing?
3. What do you think constitutes human flourishing?

Group Activity
1.Group presentation. For each group, state a brief history or discovery that
brought about the invention or discovery of the things stated below. State their
contributions in our scientific development.
a. Gravity
b. Telescope
c. Processed Food
d. Microscope
e. Radio
f. Benzene Ring
g. Large Hardon Collider
h. Guns
i. Internet
j. Cell phones
2. Brainstorming. By group, try to determine the possible alternatives to growth
and development. List down several ways to promote sustainable living and start
a mini-campaign advocating the method of your choice

REFERENCES
Bloor, D (1981). “The Strengths of the Strong Programme.” Philosophy
Of the social Sciences, 11 (2): 199
Dayrit, F.M. (2011). “Sustainable Development: An Evolving Paradigm for the 21 st
Century.” Stellar Origins Human Ways. Ed. Ma. Assunta C. Cuyegkeng. 231-57
Ferngren, G. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion in
the Western Tradition. New York: Garland.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). “How to Defend Society Against Science.” Radical
Philosophy 11 (1):3-9.
Hempel, C.G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Hickel, J (2015). ‘Forget Developing’ Rich Counteries, it’s Time to’De-Develop’ Rich
Countries.” Accessed February 10, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development-professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-
developrich-countries-sdgs.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revulotions. 3 rd Ed. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K.R. (1989). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific
Knowledge. Oxford: Routledge.
Thagard, P. (1978). “Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience.” PSA: Proceedings of the
Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978: 223-234.
Thomson, J.A. (2003). The Nicomachean Ethics. London: Penguin.
Wilson, E.O. (2005). The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.