I. When did Science began? According to Lee Pearly (1990).

“Self-awareness/self-
conscious analysis of our way of thinking is the start
Science has had a profound impact on human
of science” it simply means that science start when
life and to the whole world, every living things and
we start using our minds by thinking and developing
non-living things in this world is part of the science
something unusual. Like the ancient Greeks, Chinese
even the galaxy has been conquered by science. But
and Mesopotamian they discovered that a plant can
what if is there is no science, they did not discover
be used as a paper and it is the papyrus. They
the fire, the water, electricity and many more did you
discover it by being familiar with the things living
see your life just like the human exist before 10000
around and they explore.
B.C.E creeping where ever they want and eating raw
meat, insects or just about whatever gets picked up The Therefore, I conclude that the ascertained and
somewhere and just die it’s just like living as if dead. inventions in ancient times, the 6th century to be
specific is can be classified as a product of science
Science is valued by society because the
because it is done utilizing observation out of
application of scientific knowledge helps to satisfy
curiosity. nonetheless, The Greek ancient who
basic human needs and improve living standards.
discovered papyrus, poppy seeds, also the use of a
Science is also part of our daily lives, from taking a
compass. The Greek ancients who recognized such
bath, transformation using phone and comprehending
things are not considered as a scientist but we can be
the daily whether report. The science’s greatest
called as philosophers but the science has begun in
contribution to this world is medicine over the years;
the 6th century when people started to take some
many lives have been saved by science.
actions about what is happening around them.
We all know that science is very important to
II. If science requires scientific method, can
our life but when is science begun? But before that
we consider all the previous body of
let’s we need to know first what really science is.
knowledge as science?
Science is come from the Latin word scientia which
means “knowledge or knowing”. The goal of science If science requires scientific method, then all of the
is to answer all types questions or events in this previous body of knowledge should have a scientific
world. Some other people believe that science is method for it to be considering as science.
begun when the human being exist in this world
Science, as define by the previous module, is a
because of a lot discoveries but in my opinion the
systematized body of knowledge based on facts and it
discoveries and science are difference, because
would only be considered as systematized if it
discovery is only recognizing something that already
follows the scientific method or process. It only
exists for the first time, that nobody has found before
means that a body of knowledge would only be
and not to explain why that things happen, just like
considered as science if it follows scientific process
the discovery of the fire they just discover fire but
that were mainly observations and raising of
they did not know how fire formed and they have no
questions, exploring of results, and creating of new
idea why when they scratched the stone it creates fire.
conclusions.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity
encompassing the systematic study of the structure Agriculture, on that time frame, became the stable
and behaviour of the physical and natural world source of food for the human beings.
through observation, experiment and collecting the For the agriculture to become stable as their source of
facts. Science is a knowledge covering general truths food, they need to be familiar with the seasons.
especially as obtained and tested through scientific
method. The definition itself of science stated If it is a body of knowledge can we considered it as a
systematic study which means is a pursuit of science? - No, because it doesn’t follows the
knowledge that is methodical: carried on by using scientific method.
step by step procedure that would be scientific Previous body of knowledge could pertain to the time
method. before the scientific method was invented; it only
means that all of the previous body of knowledge is
 not a science because science requires scientific laws are about to describe and predict but
method. not to explain, what they did is they are just
describing. The example for this one is the
Which came first: Science or Technology?
discoveries of Greek philosophers, the
Technology is knowledge put into practical use to solve papyrus and poppy seeds.
problems or invent useful tools.Science and
Second one is, the empirical law confirmation about the theory
technology are complementary to each other. The
is direct because it is by means of observable terms
ancient humans developed technologies to survive in
and to be followed by the confirmation of the
earth through different raw materials and tools. They
theoretical term is indirect because it relies on
didn't understand the science behind those things. No
empirical laws derived from theory.
research was conducted.
However, having said that the empirical laws confirmations
Technology comes first before science since man first
are derived from is theory it doesn’t mean that theory
discovered tires, whether it be stone or wood were
comes first, it’s just a cycle, a theory will never grow
used by early civilization long before science was
up into law, though the development of one often
studied. The ancient human beings developed
triggers progress on the other.
imperfect tools like grinding stone, sticks, clubs,
stone knife, etc. Even though they lack scientificScientific knowledge begins with brilliant ideas., usually by
reasoning, they managed to apply scientific means of questioning and when it is answered, it is
knowledge like wedge, inclined plane, friction, etc to tested to be valid explanation to the observes natural
fabricate ancient tools. Therefore, technology came phenomena, and it is considered as a new knowledge
first. and it will be include in the existing body of scientific
knowledge.
III. What makes a scientific law a law? What
makes a scientific theory a theory? Which “What makes a scientific law, a law?”
came first, law or a theory?
Scientific Law:
The thing that makes scientific theory a theory is its ability to
> Is a statement based on repeated experimental observations
predict new empirical laws by theoretical postulates
that describes some phenomenon of nature.
combined with correspondence rules that join
theoretical and observational terms. > Tends to describes the natural phenomena

Similarities and differences of the scientific laws and Theory
Scientific Law
Now that we understand what scientific law is and scientific
Empirical Law .Statements expressing regularities.
Direct observations or observable. Explain facts
already know. Predicts facts not yet known.
Similarities- Both Scientific. Both explains and predicts.
Scientific Theory
Theoretical Law. Laws about entities like molecules,
atoms, electromagnetic field and such. Non-
observable. Helps explain empirical laws. Makes it
possible to predict new empirical laws
 I stand for the law comes first, the reason(s)
is that before, when they are no real scientist
and scientific method, Ancients philosophers
provided a descriptions of things but without
explaining it. As the details shown before,
> Is a description of an observed phenomenon but it doesn’t
provide any explanation on why and how is happens.
theory then let’s finds out, which came first, law or a
theory? If we based on foregoing information I will
conclude that the law came first because of course
being scientist you need to see or observe first the
phenomena to get an explanation, how do you
explain how phenomenon occur if you have not seen
them or the phenomena first and if you don’t have
basis then on which you will base study, it’s just like
solving the problem that you don’t know. Most of the
scientist discover first the scientific law before the
scientific for example Isaac Newton of how he
discover gravity, Newton discovered the gravity
while lying under an apple tree and thinking about
the forces of nature, he observed an apple from
branch to the ground just because of this scenario he
 become curious about why apple fall to the ground,
while observing and conducting experiment then he
realized that some force must be acting on falling
objects likes apples because otherwise they would not
start moving from. Newton called this force “gravity”
and determined that gravitational forces exist
between all objects, based on this scenario the
scientific law is that every time you drop an apple it
will fall to the ground and the theory is the
explanation of why the apple falls to the ground, the
cause falling apple is the gravity.
IV. What enables paradigm shift? How could
this result from the interaction of science
and technology in society?
Paradigm is a universally accepted specific
theoretical orientation, worldviews, or standard
perception for scientific practice, within a field of
study. Once paradigm is established, through an
agreement of most scientist within that field, then
those working within which, following the set
standard, could now start with the puzzle-solving,
collecting of data, making calculations and such, that
is what Kuhn calls “normal science.”
Also, according to Kuhn, normal science led to
the recognition of anomalies and to crises. Those
anomalies arise because some scientist that
researches about something, same with the other
scientist within that field, with some of them that uses
a more advanced material or technology, interpreted
the research differently and, or, the results on their or
research cannot be explained by the same paradigm
or there’s a lack of explanation from the previous
paradigm. Those unexplained results or anomalies
piled up that led to the crisis. From these arising
anomalies that led to crisis, a new perception and
interpretation rose that, explains those anomalies,
eventually led to an another paradigm, this is what
Kuhn calls “paradigm shift.”
Paradigm shift is the transition or replication of
the old paradigm to a new and more acceptable
paradigm. One could say that that transition is a
paradigm shift, if an old paradigm was replaced by a
new one, make possible because of the rise of
anomalies leading to crises that also rose because of
seeing the familiar objects in a different light with, in
a way, the use of a more advance technology for that
field.
In addition, the way Kuhn discusses the
scientific revolution, that he believes as a
epistemological paradigm shift, also discusses how it
led to scientific progress. For Kuhn, scientific
progress falls into phases as follows:
The pre-paradigmatic stage or the emergence of
paradigm or a standard perception within a field
Emergence of the normal science from the paradigm
through puzzle solving and such
Then, the emergence of anomalies and crisis because
of insufficient explanation of the old paradigm
Finally, Scientific Revolution or the occurrence of
paradigm shift because the old paradigm was
replaced by the new paradigm
And so on....
Based on that scientific process or phases of science,
retrieving the old paradigm even if it was already
replaced with a new one is not applicable. It is
because , as to the statement of Kuhn, old
measurements and manipulations (from the old
paradigm) became irrelevant and were change by
others. Also, the new establish paradigm provides a
fruitful platform for future researches but not for the
past researches.
For a better understanding of paradigm shift, an
example is indicated below:
Around late 1600, scientist, specifically astronomers,
viewed a certain celestial body as a star- the first
paradigm or theory 1.
According to Kuhn, after several years, when
Herschel studied that considered star, he have seen
that that, considered star, has an apparent disk-size
that is unusual for stars- the anomaly.
After his discovery, Herschel says that he had seen a
new comet and continue to study it from a cometary
orbit point of view- a new paradigm.
But, several months of studying the orbit of what he
considered as a comet does not foot the cometary
orbit- anomaly arise.
Lexell, then, suggested that the considered comet was
probably revolving on a planetary orbit, hence, it is a
planet that what we called a Uranus now- new
paradigm.
• When the suggestions of Lexell have already been
accepted, some more discoveries take place-
paradigm shift occurs.
, How could this result from the interaction of science
and technology?
There results of paradigm shifting would be fruitful
in the body of Science,technology and also in
philosophy because this results is filtered by many
scientist and it is improved and developed in a more
useful way, that any one of us can use in our future
studies but the disadvantage of this is that it is based
on the perceptions of the previous scientist, we all
have different perception when it come in a certain
thing . Its hard to classify who Is saying the truth
behind of one question is a million ideas and it will
depend on you, if you will adapt an idea from others
or you will conduct your own study and contradict
others .
V. How did Science and Technology affected
the society and environment?
1. Another development in the Renaissance Period is
the progress of Science. Further researches, were
made, new discoveries, and improvement or changes
of past sciences to the sciences of this period.
Following are the examples of science progress:
- Observation of the natural satellite’s, or moon as we
all knew, motion around the Jupiter by Galileo
- Scientific Method of Francis Bacon
From those discoveries and changes of science,
it became a great help for the society in discovering
more of what is to discover and been a great help of
an improvement.
Those progresses in science and technology
were possible because of paradigm shift. Paradigm
Shift, define as a concept, in which a fundamental
change in basic concept and experimental practices of
scientific discipline (from the lesson today). To fully
understand the concept of paradigm shift that results
to science and technology, an example is presented
below:
- The observation of Galileo of the motion of the
natural satellites of Jupiter around it, supporting the
Earth-Moon system in Copernican system. –This
discovery supports the claims of Copernicus from his
Heliocentric Model, that has a different concept with
Ptolemy’s Geocentric Model
From the development of the lenses, toward the end
of Middle Ages, to the invention of first telescope,
Galileo have constructed his own telescope and make
improvements on it over the time.
In Conclusion, paradigm shift’s consequences are
science and technology. Those consequences stated
above shows the progress and change in science and
technology after it undergo a change in basic
concepts and experimental practices. Furthermore,
those changes in science and technology did a great
improvement in the society and environment,
developing them more and did a significant change
for the better.
2. In general, development of the country is strongly
connected with the growth of the development in
science and technology. These tree words,
development, science and technology, always go
together and are very necessary for people and their
better living. We can say that our life depends on new
inventions and scientific creations. As science and
technology changes people life to a very great extent.
Alongside with many advantages, some people
also consider science and technology to be harmful
for humans. The deal is that it is also used for some
destructive purposes. Scientifically created weapons
like atom or hydrogen bombs are able to destroy the
whole world in just few minutes. Some people also
think that it is not environmentally friendly to use all
the advantages of scientific progresses. People should
just learn how to use everything in a proper way.
In conclusion, it must be admitted that science
and technologies can lead human civilization to
perfection in living. At the same time, everything
should be done in wise perspectives and to some
extents, not to harm and destroy the world. Earth has
sound for those, who listen.
VI. Can we say that Paradigm Shift depends
on the scientific thinking of society? Or the
transformation of scientific thinking depends on
the Paradigm Shift? Is it a product of necessity, or
a product of curiosity? How could this result to
the manifestation of each premise?
 With the figure or illustration above we could say
that Paradigm Shift depends on the Society with the
following premises:
- Paradigm Shift is the changed in worldview as the
old theory was replaced by another theory.
- The worldview came from the Society.
- That worldview from the society is the collection of
selected theories, laws, ideas, and such.
- From that worldview, it also encompasses those
anomalies and crises that are needed for Paradigm
Shift to happen.
- With those anomalies present in the worldview from
the Society, the necessity to solve or do something
about those anomalies would now enter the picture.
- That necessity is what enables Paradigm Shift to
happen from the Society.
With those indicated premises above it only explains
that Paradigm Shift depends on Society that came up
with the worldview that encompasses those collection
of selected theories, laws, ideas, as well as anomalies
and crises that let the necessity to solve those
anomalies in the picture, enabling Paradigm Shift to
happen from the Society.
VII. What makes science good or bad?
1. At the start of the chapter ‘The Rights and Wrongs of
Science’, it states that Science had a bad press for
the past decades. It is because more and more
scientists have been accused of behaving badly as
they have been mistreating their human or animal
subjects and falsifying their findings. Because of
this, some of those works have been questionable
whether it can be called science at all. But, how
would someone be able to determine if a science or
sciences is good or bad, or if it is right or wrong?
Lastly, explanations about ethical codes of
science were the discussed in the latter part of the
chapter. It first discourse that scientist and some
people have been aware of the problems with the
ethics of science but what should be done about it
was asked and using the consciences of the people
will not work, the reason why an Ethical Code was
formulated to spell out what was acceptable and
unacceptable conduct in science. Some of these
ethical codes are The Nuremberg Code, created after
the World War II as a response to the atrocities, and
Code of Ethics of the Australian Chemical Institute,
concerns with the proper conduct toward the clients,
employers and the general public. Now, in
determining whether a science is right or wrong, the
ground or guide that would be used is the formulated
ethical code. But, in having this ethical code, it must
be assured that it is under constant review and
processes of updating it as science changes and new
ethical problem may appear.
In conclusion, in establishing whether a science is
right or wrong an ethical code must be made, to
where the ethical issues arise, and because science is
constantly changing, the formulated ethical code
must also be under constant review and processes of
updating it.
2. The Tuskegee project considers as unethical
human experiment experimentation, this is the human
experimentation that violates the principles of
medical ethics. Such practices have included denying
patients the right to informed consent, using
pseudoscientific frameworks such as race science,
and torturing people under the guise of research. Nazi
Germany performed human experimentation on large
numbers of prisoners (including children), largely
Jews from across Europe, but also Romani, Sinti,
ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs, homosexuals and
disabled Germans. Prisoners were forced into
participating; they did not willingly volunteer and no
consent was given for the procedures. Typically, the
experiments resulted in death, trauma, illness,
shortening of life, disfigurement, or permanent
disability, and as such are considered as examples of
medical torture since the participants had to endure
mass amounts of pain. Over three-fourths of the
subjects eventually died from complications of
syphilis. Many of those who survived became blind
and crippled. The experiment was conducted without
the benefit of patients' informed consent. Some of
scientist commits a mistake or crimes for the success
of their scientific study and inventions. Not only
human has experienced the unethical experiment,
also the animals but unlike to the human, animals
they cannot defend themselves from scientific
experiment and they have no idea what is experiment.
The harm that the experiment will cause is the result
of multiplying together: the moral value of an
experimental animal, the number of animals suffering
in the experiment and the negative value of the harm
done to each animal. The harmful use of animals in
experiments is not only cruel but also often
ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human
diseases that people do, such as major types of heart
disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson's
disease, or schizophrenia. Some of the scientist did
not care how their experiments affect to the human or
animals, what matters are their science experiment
and inventions.
Scientific ethics calls for honesty and integrity
in all stages of scientific practice, from reporting
results regardless to properly attributing
collaborators. This system of ethics guides the
practice of science, from data collection to
publication and beyond. As in other professions, the
scientific ethic is deeply integrated into the way
scientists work, and they are aware that the reliability
of their work and scientific knowledge in general
depends upon adhering to that ethic. Many of the
ethical principles in science relate to the production
of unbiased scientific knowledge, which is critical
when others try to build upon or extend research
findings. The open publication of data, peer review,
replication, and collaboration required by the
scientific ethic all help to keep science moving
forward by validating research findings and
confirming or raising questions about results.
Some of cases show the consequences of using
science and how the scientist deal to use of science.
The human decides whether the science is bad or
good, if it is has positive effect to them they view it
as good but if it negative effects them, they will
regard a science invention or scientific thinking as
bad. As we observed of some cases that have been
mention the science becomes bad and good its
dependent on how human used it and how does
science affect the society and environment, the
example of this is the case of the Tuskegee project,
the intention of human experiment is good but the
human experiment become unethical because the way
of conducting experiment. The scientist violates
human rights, prisoners or human subject were forced
into participating; they did not willingly volunteer
and no consent was given for the procedures.
A. Did Paradigm Shift also happen in the
Philippines? If yes, how? If no, why?
Studying the History of Science and
Technology in the Philippines gave fruitful
information on how does science and technology
develop in Philippines, what makes it possible, and
how did it prosper in a long period of time. But,
taking a look again to the development that happened
to the science and technology in the Philippines, it
only shows that it only develop by means of
surviving and the adaptation from the colonization of
Spaniards and Americans and did not even undergo a
development because of Paradigm Shift. The
development of science and technology from those
reasons is not sufficient to say that Philippines had
also undergone Paradigm Shift. Paradigm Shift as a
concept, in which a fundamental change in basic
concept and experimental practices of scientific
discipline, with this as a restriction to say that a
situation had gone through Paradigm Shift, it became
a very evident guide to conclude that paradigm shift
did not happen in the Philippines. In order to
understand this clearly, examples were indicated
below:
In the Pre-colonial Period, the science and technology
of the Philippines is only for the means of their
survival that time. They were not able to establish
some of their technologies because it did not even
surpass the one with those who surrounds them.
When the Spaniards came to the Philippines and took
over the place, those developments in the country as
well as in the science and technology became
possible because of what the Spaniards brought with
them. In short, they only replicated those and adapt to
the newly modernized environment.
It goes the same to when the Americans came into the
view.
Then, when the country already had its independence,
they only pushed thru the concern and support for the
development of science and technology.
In Conclusion, Science and Technology in the
Philippines undergoes development through survival,
adaptation, and some other factors. But, those
developments did not happen because Paradigm Shift
had gone through the country.