Human FLOURISHING
GE-108
But First
If I say FLOURISHING What do you think
FLOURISHING IS DEVELOPING RAPIDLY
AND SUCCESFULLY THRIVING
Introduction of Human Flourishing
Eudaimonia, literally “good spirited,” is a term
coined by renowned Greek philosopher Aristotle (385-323
BC) to describe the pinnacle of happiness that is attainable
by humans. This has often been translated into “human
flourishing” in literature, arguably likening humans to
flowers achieving their full bloom. As discussed in the
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s human flourishing arises as
a result of different components such as phronesis,
friendship, wealth, and power.
Introduction of Human Flourishing
As times change, elements that comprise
human flourishing changed, which are subject to the
dynamic social history as written by humans.
People found means to live more comfortably,
explore more places, develop more products, and
make more money, and then repeating the process
in full circle.
Introduction of Human Flourishing
In the beginning, early people relied on simple
machines to make hunting and gathering easier. This
development allowed them to make grander and more
sophisticated machines to aid them in their endeavors that
eventually led to space explorations, medicine innovations,
and ventures of life after death.
Introduction of Human Flourishing
The concept of human flourishing today proves to be different
from what Aristotle originally perceived then humans of today are
expected to become a “man of the world.” He is 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.
LESSON
OBJEETIVES
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
identify different conceptions of human flourishing;
determine the development of the scientific method and validity of science; and
critic human flourishing vis-à-vis progress of science and technology to be able to define for
themselves the meaning of a good life.
Science Technology, and
Human flourishing
Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing
In the previous chapters, contributions of science and technology have been laid
down thoroughly. Every discovery, innovation, and success contributes to our pool of
human knowledge. Perhaps, one of the most prevalent themes is human's perpetual
need to locate himself in the world by finding proofs to trace evolution. The business of
uncovering the secrets of the universe answers the question of our existence and
provides us something to look forward to. Having a particular role, which is uniquely
ours, elicits our idea of self-importance. It is in this regard that human flourishing is
deeply intertwined with goal setting relevant to science and technology.
Science as Method and
Results
Science as Method and Results
For the most part, science’s reputation stems from the
objectivity brought upon by an arbitrary, rigid methodology whose
very character absolves it from any accusation of prejudice. Such
infamy effectively raised science in a pedestal untouchable by other
institutions-its sole claim to reason and empiricism – garnering
supporters who want to defend it and its ways.
Science as Method and Results
In school, the scientific method is introduced in the earlier part of discussions. Even
though the number of steps varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:
1. Observe and determine if there are unexplained occurrences unfolding.
2. Determine the problem and identify factors involved.
3. Through past knowledge of similar instance, formulate hypothesis that could explain the said
phenomenon. Ideally, the goal is to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis for the study “to count as significant” (can also be separated into additional steps
such as “to generate prediction” or “to infer from past experiments”).
Science as Method and Results
4. Conduct experiment by setting up dependent and independent
variables, and trying to see how independent ones affect dependent ones.
5. Gather and analyze results throughout and upon culmination of the
experiment. Examine if the data gathered are significant enough to conclude
results.
6. Formulate conclusion and provide recommendation in case others would
want to broaden the study.
Science as Method and Results
At least in the students’ formative years, the above routine is basic
methodology when introducing them to experimentation and empiricism
two distinct features that give science edge over other schools of thought.
Throughout the course of history, however, there exists heavy objections
on the scientific procedure; the line separating science and the so-called
pseudoscience becomes more muddled.
Verification
Theory
Verification Theory
The earliest criterion that distinguishes philosophy and
science is verification theory. The idea proposes that a
discipline is science if it can be confirmed or interpreted in
the event of an alternative hypothesis being accepted. In
that regard, said theory gives premium to empiricism and
only takes into account those results which are measurable
and
Continuation of verification theory "
experiments which are repeatable. This was espoused by a movement in the
early twentieth century called the Vienna Circle, a group of scholars who believed
that only those which can be observed should be regarded as meaningful and
reject those which cannot be directly accessed as meaningless. American
philosopher Thomas Kuhn warned us against bridging the gap between evidence
and theory by attempting to interpret the former according to our own biases, that
is, whether or not we subscribe to the theory. Below is a short story illustrating
this point:
Continuation of verification theory "
Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a (not-soscientific) 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 interactions 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 thought,why would anyone do
something like that for a person he does not like?
Falsification Theory
Falsification Theory
Perhaps the current prevalent methodology in science,
falsification theory asserts that as long as an ideology is
not proven to be false and can best explain a phenomenon
over alternative theories, we should accept the said
ideology. Due to its hospitable character, the shift to this
theory allowed emergence of theories otherwise rejected
by verification theory
Falsification Theory
It does not promote ultimate adoption of one theory but
instead encourages research in order to determine which
among the theories can stand the test of falsification. The
strongest one is that which is able to remain upheld amidst
various tests, while being able to make particularly risky
predictions about the world. Karl Popper is the known
proponent of this view.
Falsification Theory
To illustrate, previous story is restated:
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 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 past.
Falsification Theory
When they are 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 (as a person) is wrong and thus said proposition is
rejected.
Although there is no happy ending yet for Lea and Ian, we can thus see how in this
case, falsification method is prone to the same generalizations committed by the
verification method. 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. Similarly, there is no assurance
that observable event or “evidences” are indeed manifestations of a certain concept or
“theories.” Thus, even though, theoretically, falsification method is more accepted,
scientists are still not convinced that it should be regarded as what makes a discipline
scientific.
Science as a Social Endeavor
Science as a Social Endeavor
For the most part, people who do not understand science are won
over 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 as a Social Endeavor
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 and Results
Science and Results
For the most part, people who do not understand science are won over
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. 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.
Science as Education
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 of objectivity in reality, subscribing instead to
alternative idea called inter subjectivity. With objectivity gone, it has
lost its number one credence. Nevertheless, there still exists a repressing
concept that comes about as a result of unjustified irreverence of
science-our preference of science-inclined students over those which are
less adept.
How Much Is Too Much?
How Much Is Too Much?
In 2000, world leaders signed the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) that targets eight concerns,
one of which states that they should be able to forge a
global partnership for development. Inasmuch 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.
How Much Is Too Much?
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 provide so 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 preordained ceiling once the ball starts rolling. If the MDG
convention’s intent was to get everyone 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.
How Much Is Too Much?
The rapid pace of technological growth allows no room
for nature to recuperate, resulting in exploitation and
irreversible damages to nature. Right now, we are
experiencing repercussions of said exploits 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
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Human flourishing is 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 chose 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. However, that does not stop institutions
to favor those who excel in said discipline. Finally, the economic perception of enrichment,
otherwise known as growth, is heavily fueled by technology and should be impeded. We
have to rethink of our perception of a good life apart from one presented in this regard.
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 21st
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 Countries, 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-develop- rich-countries-
sdgs.
thank you for listening
• GROUP REPORTERS:
• Ryan Philip Bantigue
• April Bechayda
• Paul Joshua Baulite
• Maria Falco
