STS

1. What would happen to human kind if technology did not exist?

If technology does not exist the human kind will remain strenuous in everything they do.
Without technology,only few vehicles will be made and few buildings as well. The
passing of messages is slow and the communication is not fast. If the communication is
not as easy as today, this will reflect to the speed of projects therefore the world and the
humans are all slow motion compared to the world with technology. In general, if
technology dies not exist, the world will not be as easy and as prosperous as today.
However, families may be closed to each other more than how they are closed to their
gadgets.

ADVANTAGES OF TECHNOLOGY
Works have become easier and quicker.
Communications are instant and clear because there is a fast exchange of questions
and answers even from a distance.
Technology solves the problem of long distance relationship because the
communication is present. Each other remains updated to the daily whereabouts of
his/her partner except when signal is absent.
There is a bigger chance of finding husband/wife even when one does not go out
frequently because of technology. There is also a big chance of marrying somebody
from the other side of the world.
Reports and other written documents are printed neatly because you can just easily
write and erase the letters via soft copy.
DISADVANTAGES OF TECHNOLOGY
Most people do not know hard work or hands on working because technology has
replaced them.
Even kids and children knows how to use technology even if it is not yet appropriate in
their age.
Those who cannot afford are left behind and seem to be strangers in the world.
Without the proper guidance, children come to play computers during classes and
neglect their studies.
Young people already have eye defects because information are stocked in technology
gadgets and they keep on viewing at the screen even when moving.
2. Do you agree with Martin Heidegger in his idea that technology should only be
seen as one of the approach in perceiving truth? what other possible approaches
we should consider?
Technology has never solved society's problems, and to make it even worse, our ethical
values were constantly steps behind technological advancement.

Explanation:
Why is technology not neutral?

Heidegger strongly opposes the view that technology is “a means to an end” or “a

human activity.” These two approaches, which Heidegger calls, respectively, the
“instrumental” and “anthropological” definitions, are indeed “correct”, but do not go deep
enough; as he says, they are not yet “true.” Unquestionably, Heidegger points out,
technological objects are means for ends, and are built and operated by human beings,
but the essence of technology is something else entirely. Just as the essence of a tree
is not itself a tree, Heidegger points out, so the essence of technology is not anything
technological.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) saw 20th century Europe as a
historical period dominated by the being of all entities construed as available for use
and manipulation (by human beings). Thus, the natural world (forests, rivers, animals) is
understood as a giant stockroom of material waiting to be used up in human projects.
It’s easy to misunderstand Heidegger’s point if you see all this as something that
modern people (we) project onto already existing and perceived stuff (out there)—he
claims that this is how the being of all entities is unconcealed and disclosed in the first
place (in our era). It is not one human perspective among many that we might adopt
(and then discard for a different perspective). Heidegger was not a humanist. He did not
believe that all meaning and significance and understanding derive from human
cognition or consciousness (as Sartre did).

Heidegger was aware that over the last 3,000 years there have been different
manifestations of the being of all entities (during the Middle Ages all entities were
experienced as creations of God). But Heidegger doesn’t think that we today can
recapture this particular dispensation of being anymore than the experience of the
unconcealment of all entities by Parmenides and Heraclitus in pre-Socratic times can
really be shared by we modern people.
Note: None of this has anything to do with, as you put it in your question, “approaching
truth”. When discussing Heidegger it’s best to avoid the term “truth” altogether (he uses
this term in an eccentric manner).

Someone who has around 80 years to live shouldn’t be shitting up the paper with his
projections about what truth is or how it can be seen. It all looks like a retard trying too
hard to cope with his own mental weakness by pretending to be more valuable then he
is by writing words that confuse the shit out of other people and don’t really make any
sense, thus giving an illusion of higher intellect, thus making it possible to create an
environment where a bunch of dumb people are listening attentively to someone who’s
just bullshitting his ass off for one or the other reason. Probably with some political
agenda in mind.

Humans are retarded.. lets not get too exited about the whole sapient larp. We are
intelligent, yes.. sort of. We are smart enough to pull down our pants when we have to
take a shit and sometimes we can avoid traffic successfully without accidents and dead
people, but that’s about it. Humans are weak thus have to rely on lies to survive. Accept
this fact. We are all snake oil salesmen.

For a human to see the truth, one has to become super-human, invincible. Otherwise..
the truth is inaccessible. But lies.. lies are very accessible, just say whatever the fuck
you want and you got it.

Two points:

Technology was never “one of the approaches in perceiving truth.” Not in ancient times,
not in medieval times, not in modern times.
There are two possible approaches to perceive Truth according to Western Philosophy,
namely: (a) Reason; and (b) the Will to Power.

Personally, I do not agree on Martin Heidegger’s idea that technology should only be
seen as one of the approaches in perceiving the truth. Technology will never disclose or
perceive any truth, may it be for moral truth, justice, honesty, moderation, courage nor
ethics.

There are two possible approaches to perceive Truth according to Western Philosophy,
namely: (1) Reason; and (2) the Will to Power.
Heidegger, following his Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, chose #2. This is shown in his
Authoritarian writing style (i.e. he asserts but never pauses to prove or argue his case).

Heidegger, following his Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, chose (b). This is shown in his Authoritarian
writing style (i.e. he asserts but never pauses to prove or argue his case, or even to
define his neologisms).

1. What is your understanding of indigenous science?

Indigenous science relates to both the science knowledge of long‐resident, usually
oral culture peoples, as well as the science knowledge of all peoples who as
participants in culture are affected by the worldview and relativist interests of their home
communities.
It refers to the science knowledge of all peoples who, as participants in culture, are
affected by the worldview and interests of their home communities and homelands. ...
Cultural diversity suggests that Western Science and Indigenous Science should be
viewed as co-existing or parallel. ❤
It is a part of the indigenous knowledge system practiced by different groups of people
and early civilizations.
It uses science process skills.
Guided by community, culture and values.
Composed of traditional knowledge.

2. What are the examples if indigenous science practices?

There are many example of indigenous science - not just one. Off the top of my head - I
would say ethno-pharmacology. Traditional healing herbs and other plants (but not
excluding animal organs) from which many modern medicines derive. A good example
in a very readable format is Wade Davis’ “The Serpent and the Rainbow” that deals with
hallucinogenic flora, which are the basis for some modern drugs.
Tapuy, also spelled tapuey or tapey, is a rice wine produced in the Philippines. It is a
traditional beverage originated from Banaue and the Mountain Province, where it is
used for important occasions such as weddings, rice harvesting ceremonies, fiestas and
cultural fairs
Swidden agriculture, also known as shifting cultivation, refers to a technique of
rotational farming in which land is cleared for cultivation (normally by fire) and then left
to regenerate after a few years.
“When the goats repeatedly wail, there will be landslide.”
3. Why do some people believe in indigenous science?
I use indigenous science, old wives' tales, ancient wisdom and, medicine, have for
years, thoroughly believe in it. In parts of the world, indigenous science is all that is
available. Indigenous science kept us alive for millions of years. Modern science has
made a fine mess of things making things better in 800-years. Indigenous science does
not require electricity. Modern science totally depends on electricity.
4. Do you think indigenous science could be considered science?
There is one criteria for science. Does it follow the scientific method? Does it attempt to
test its hypothesis rigorously?

If by indigenous science you mean science that takes indigenous folk knowledge as a
starting point and tests that knowledge to separate the truth from the tall tales then it
should be considered science.

The people who have lived in an area for untold generations and depended on an
intimate knowledge of their environment to survive surely have a lot to teach us.

If by indigenous science you mean “my folklore is as good as your investigation” then no
it should not be considered science.

The scientific method is not owned by anyone and any proper application of it must be
welcomed by society at large. If “indigenous” science is conducted according to
scientific methodology that relies on factual, verifiable evidence for its findings and
explanations, then it will be considered as a science. If it is based on opinion, hearsay,
imagination, faith etc. without proper evidence, then it cannot be regarded as scientific.

5. What is the role of indigenous science in the development of science and

technology?

Throughout history, Indigenous peoples have been responsible for the development of
many technologies and have substantially contributed to science.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Approaches to gathering that knowledge are
culturally relative. Indigenous science incorporates traditional knowledge and
Indigenous perspectives, while non-Indigenous scientific approaches are commonly
recognized as Western science. Together, they contribute substantially to modern
science.
The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Advancing Science and Technology. ... In
particular, when it comes to understanding ecological relationships and natural resource
management, indigenous knowledge has played a huge role in providing cumulative
wisdom passed on from generation to generation.
Indigenous as in science and technology developed by aboriginal people is the
basis for many things we have today.

The Mayans and Aztec people studied the stars and moon cycles to develop a
calendar the basis of our present day calendar. The Chinese broke down a day
into hours and minutes to create a water clock.

South American aboriginals domesticated corn from a three grain grass to a cob of
many kernels then traded that to other aboriginals right up into what is now Canada.
Corn has since become the most used grain crop in the world feeding people, animals
and fuel for transportation. .

Aboriginals of northern areas discovered aspirin, in the form of red willow bark. People
in the southern areas discovered curare from frogs, used today in hospitals around the
world.

Aboriginal or indigenous science and technology is the basis for many things we
take for granted today. It is the origination of science and technology we have
been able to build on. Even the idea of computers started in China with the
creation of the abacus as a means to calculate and record large sums for weights,
measures and finance.

Indigenous Science and technology, I would say, is in some way or other the start of all
the science and technology we have today.

I suppose you could say that the bow and arrow lead to missiles in a way. We just use a
different means of propulsion.

On my point of view there isn’t a big role of indigenous science in the development of
science and technology because indigenous science is to science and technology of
today like is natural science of yesterday and once natural science is yet active and is
studied by many people and these ones don’t look for indigenous science as they look
for natural science I believe that indigenous science had its importance on the days of
the indigenous community whose community is already integrated on the community of
today and so science and technology and most of all this last one has to do very little
with indigenous science.