1.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE
HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF
SCIENCE

Vito Paolo Hernandez MS

Felipe Jocano Jr MA
Johnny C Go STB, DEd
University of the Philippines Diliman

Cesar Z Luna MMA

University of the Philippines Open University

Brian Ventura MA
University of the Philippines Visayas

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This module on the history and philosophy of science should allow you to critically and seriously
revisit essential concepts of Science and Technology. That you do not know what science and
technology is, is not the issue, but that you,in your formative years, were not given time to
reflect on how and why these ideas affect and are affected by society is.

For this overview of the history and philosophy of science in this course on Science, Technology
and Society seriously ask:
 1. What IS science, and what IS technology? (Topic 1)
2. How, and why, have we produced science, and technology? (Topic 2); and
3. How, and why, have we used them in the course of human history? (Topic 3)

You will also be allowed to explore the different philosophies and histories of Science and
Technology. Moreover, you will be encouraged to appropriate your preferred philosophy in
discussing particular societal concerns or issues affected by its complex inter-relations with
Science and Technology?

1.2 MODULE TOPICS

The guide questions you were asked to keep in mind in the Introduction will be systematically
tackled as you go through the three topics that make up Module 1, An overview of the History
and Philosophy of Science. These topics include:

TOPIC 1: The meaning of Science and Technology. What is STS?

TOPIC 2: Ways of knowing and doing in Science and Technology
TOPIC 3: Histories and Philosophies of Science and Technology

MODULE LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this module you should be able to:

1. Define “Science” and “Technology” through a particular tradition of thinking, and
2. Differentiate “Science” and “Technology” within the context of societal concerns and issues.

In order to achieve this you must first be able to:

3. Describe how and why the “Science” and/or “Technology” was developed, and
4. Demonstrate how this/these may be utilized in critically understanding a particular societal
concern or issue. In so doing:
5. Explore the histories and philosophies of scientific thought and technological development,
and
6. Appropriate your chosen philosophy of Science and Technology in critically discussing a
societal concern or issue.

OUTLINE OF STUDY
TOPIC 1. The meaning of science and technology. What is STS?
“Science” and “Technology” have been defined for us in our formative years through different
learning media. Both are pervasive in society, and thus are usually taken for granted. We often
compartmentalize them, and rarely critically examine their relationship to and in society.

Generally, we take “Science” to mean “an organized body of knowledge”, and “Technology” as
the “application of this organized body of knowledge for the benefit of humankind”. However,
and as you hopefully realize, they mean a whole lot more, and that how they are understood
plays a crucial role in social processes, societal histories and current and future societal
undertakings.

The following key texts will help you revisit and hopefully re-examine the idea or meaning of
“Science” and “Technology”.

1. Hatton, J. and P. Plouffe (eds.). 1997. Science and Its Ways of Knowing. Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
a. Chapter 1 (Carl Sagan. “Can we know the Universe”; http://www.inf.fu-
berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Sagan-KnowTheUniverse.pdf )
b. Chapter 2 (Robert Pirsig. “On scientific method”
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/kkh/natsgc/PDFs-2013/Robert-Pirsig-On-Scientific-
Method.pdf )

2. McGinn, R. 2002. Science Technology and Society. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Chapter 2
(“Science and Technology: Their natures and relationship”, pp 13-29)

While reading these key texts take note of the following questions:

1. How many different definitions of “Science” and “Technology” might be found within
these texts?

2. What are these definitions?

3. Can you personally relate with any of these definitions?

4. Has your personal experiences/relations with “Science” and/or “Technology” been good
or bad, and what are these?
GROUP ACTIVITY: “Hugot S&T”: Your History and Knowledge of Science and Technology

Now, look for classmates who have also read through these key texts, and discuss with them
your answers to the guide questions presented above. Particularly for your group’s activity,
focus on answering - as a group - the following questions:

1. How many definitions of science have you similarly identified within the text.

2. How similar have your personal experience of “Science” and/or “Technology been

3. Aside from these personal experiences what other exemplifications of these definitions
can we observe in society?

Creatively present your discussion in class, and differentiate your discussion from those
presented by other groups.

TOPIC 2. Ways of knowing (and doing)

What you think is evidence of what you know. But how do we know that? How do we know
what we know? And does this always translate to what we do? Is your knowledge of the world
around you a fact, opinion, or judgement of what you sense? In this case ask: What is a FACT,
OPINION, and JUDGEMENT? How are these established?

2.1. What is a fact? How do societies create a scientific fact?

There are several ways of understanding what constitutes a fact. The positivist approach holds
that facts are self-evident, that they are simply there. Thus, physical phenomena that manifest
themselves visibly are held to be factual; their existence cannot be doubted inasmuch as they
are confirmed by the senses. On the other hand, a constructionist approach holds that facts are
socially created; facts are facts once people agree that these things constitute a fact.

This distinction is important in understanding the beginnings of science. How did scientists
come to create or build a consensus on what was important to understand and what was not?
In part, this was due to the accumulation of knowledge through the written word and partly
due also to the use of experimentation and observation to test hypotheses.
Ludwik Fleck (1979) pointed out that facts are created not in and of themselves but as a result
of the cognition of their existence. Such cognition is in turn a collective activity, since it is based
on a body of knowledge shared with other people. This exchange or sharing of ideas creates
what he calls a thought collective. The thought collective creates a collective mood, and as a
result of both understanding and misunderstandings, creates its own peculiar thought style. As
the thought collective becomes more and more complex and sophisticated, it divides itself into
the esoteric, the professionals and the exoteric or the laypeople. A thought style in turn has
both the active elements, which shape the way people think about the world, and the passive
elements, which the members of the thought collective hold to be objective reality. Facts in this
sense are actually social constructs, the reality of which are likely to change over time as more
and more work is put into the ideas shared by the collective. It is also the nature of the
uniqueness of the thought collectives that they are incommensurable; that is, they may not be
meaningful to each other to varying degrees. For example, what is a fact to one collective may
not be meaningful or even false to another thought collective. Thought styles are, however, not
immutable or immune to change. Thought styles may change once the realization sets in that
there are a number of phenomena that are not accounted for in the standard way of thinking.

ACTIVITY: Self Survey: Cogito ergo sum

Read Moshman’s article “Epistemic development and the perils of Pluto”. While reading keep
this question in mind to answer: How is a scientific fact developed as illustrated by the history
and development of the scientific claims of Pluto?

After reading your instructor will hand you a self-survey form. Do the following:

1. Take the self-survey that will assess your assumptions about knowing and knowledge in
five different disciplines, physical sciences, human/social sciences, value judgement,
aesthetic judgment, and religious beliefs.
2. Now, find a group to discuss your survey results with. Your instructor will give you a
diagram from which your discussion and evaluation of self and each other will be based.
3. Ask each other which of the three prevailing ways of knowing or epistemologies
presented in the diagram is prevalent in yourselves. Which ones do you think prevail in
the 1) physical and natural sciences; 2) social and human sciences; and 3) arts and
humanities? (choose one discipline) Why do you think so?

4. Differentiate your answers with other groups who have chosen the other disciplines to
discuss.
2.2. What is the relation of scientists with society?

The word scientist today has many meanings. The most common meaning is that of the
detached, impersonal and objective person wearing glasses and socially awkward most of the
time. This is partly a caricature of the research scientist, a popular in mass media from the
twentieth century onwards. The scientist is also seen as the gatekeeper of often mysterious and
arcane knowledge, knowledge that could be either helpful or harmful. In this respect the
scientist is often equated with the priest or priestess, the holder of seemingly supernatural
wisdom. In the “normal” view, scientists and therefore science was about the pure seeking of
knowledge for its own sake, in the hope that one day it would be put to use. However, a “post-
normal” view has scientists (and therefore the sciences) providing immediate solutions to
problems faced by society.

GROUP ACTIVITY: On being a scientist

Read the US National Academies of Science booklet “On being a scientist: A guide to
responsible conduct in research
(http://biblioteca.ucv.cl/site/colecciones/manuales_u/12192.pdf) and Dr Cesar Saloma’s essay
“On being a scientist in one’s home country”
https://www.philstar.com/business/science-and-environment/2009/05/14/466957/being-
scientist-ones-home-country. In reading these texts, take note:

1. What are the criteria that guide a scientist in her/his conduct of scientific work?
2. To your mind, what aspects of social life do these criteria affect? Why?
3. What are the differences between an individual scientists practice in the US and the
Philippines?

Now, after having taken note of these look for other published standards of scientific practice in
countries other than the US and the Philippines. No two groups should choose the same
country. Take note of numbers 1 and 2 and differentiate them with the practice of countries
that other groups have discussed.

TOPIC 3. Histories and philosophies of science (and technology)

3.1. History of Science and Technology

Science is often thought to precede technology, which is the application of scientific

knowledge. There are many instances in which this is not so in the history of science and
technology. Often we find that technological advances have preceded the development of
scientific knowledge.

When we think of the history of science and technology, we often think of a single integrated
view of the development of science and technology; and that is: We view the development as
“chronological” or one “development” after another . And, there are several ways of looking at
the chronology of development of science and technology..

NB: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html (synthesis of “The Structure of

Scientific Revolutions”)

GROUP ACTIVITY: Histories of Science

The “History of Science and Technology” (Bunch and Hellemans 2004)

http://www.biyolojiegitim.yyu.edu.tr/ders/btpdf/hst.PDF is a comprehensive synthesis of the
topic. It’s also 785 pages long! SKIM and SCAN through the text and ask yourself this key
questions:

1. WHO were key figures in the development of Science and Technology,

2. WHERE are the important sites and places in the development of Science and
Technology,
3. WHAT are the important concepts, ideas, and artefacts that developed Science and
Technology, and
4. HOW and WHY were these people, places, and ideas and artefacts developed?

Discuss them with your respective groupmates. Aim to formulate at least three ways to look at,
organize and understand the history of science and technology? Present them to your class and
compare your formulations with other groups.

3.2. Philosophies of Science and Technology

There are many different ways to look at the history of the development of science and
technology as is observed from previous topic. And these are developed from different schools
of thought or philosophies.

Questions like “what is the nature of science and/or technology?”; and, “what differentiates
science from pseudo-science?” are just some of the key questions philosophers of science
attempt to answer, even today. And, whether viewed as developed “normally” or “post-
normally” the way science and/or technology is perceived matters much when viewed through
a sociological lens.

For instance: What thinking about the nature of science and technology allow many of us to
receive proclamations of science and products of technology as paramount of truth and
epitome of usefulness to society? And how does this reflect on individuals and societies? Of
course, how does this write the history of humankind? In turn, what arguments have been
proposed against this rather positivist view of science and technology?

ACTIVITY:
Read
1. Karl Popper’s, Science: Conjectures and refutations,
2. E.D. Klemke et al. 1998. edited text of Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science
http://web.flu.cas.cz/scan/323508145.pdf. Part 1, Science and Psuedoscience and Part 6,
Science and Values.

Beyond the Popperian philosophy of science synthesized in his piece, what other philosophies
can you discern from Science and Psuedoscience?

After having done this, work as a group to examine how your personal choices for philosophies
of science are reflected in social values and how your current social context as student imbues
value on scientific knowledge (refer to Part 6, Science and Values).

Present your discussions with other the groups and

1. Provide examples of how these philosophies reflect on your use of current technologies,
and how these technologies affect you both positively and negatively.
2. Attempt a Philosophy of Science and Technology borne of your context as university
students.
CONCLUSION

This first Learning Module in your study of Science, Technology, and Society 1 (STS1) “Overview
of the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology” has allowed you to explore more
deeply through different key texts

1. The meaning of Science and Technology

That by different schools of thought, and through different histories they mean many
things.

2. The different ways of knowing (and doing) of science and technology

That science and technology knows what it does and does what it does based on an
individual (scientist’s or engineer’s) or communities epistemology: Are they absolutists,
evaluativists, or multiplists? And that their epistemology determines what for them
might be considered fact, theory, and/or even law; and

That scientists, and engineers, in the course of developing their sciences and
technologies are swayed too by practice and community defined within the context of
the social, cultural and historical contexts they move in.

3. Histories and Philosophies of Science and Technology

That while we can view a “normal” development of science and technology based on
anomalies and crises that scientific research and technological development encounter,
histories borne of schools of thought, including the social and cultural phenomena
interacting with this normal development allow a “post normal” societal determination
of science and technology; and

That these histories and philosophies as they are reflected in our experience of science
and technology only strengthen the need to study their interactions as we face them
and are very much a part of their interactive phenomena every single day of our lives.

Supplemental texts:

Milne, Catherine 2011 The Invention of Science: Why The History of Science Matters For The
Classroom . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Preface pp vii-x, Chapter 1, pp 1-20
Channe, David 2017 A History of Technoscience: Erasing The Boundaries Between Science And
Technology. Ch. 1 Introduction pp 1-25.

LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A. LECTURE (of 3-4 sessions) outlined as above:

Part 1: The meaning of science and technology
Part 2: Ways of knowing (and doing)
Part 3: Histories and Philosophies of Science (and technology)
Part 4: Summary
B. Group Activity (1 session)
Discussion and debates on individual perceptions and understanding of what science and
technology IS or MAY BE.
C. Individual Activity (1 session that can be done as an exercise on UVLE or in class on a single
sheet of A4 paper)
An essay (no more than 500 words) outlining your preferred Philosophy of Science from your
own (or presented) literature review
D. (SELF) SURVEY (1 session that can be done as an exercise on UVLE or in class on a single
sheet of A4 paper)

You may choose from any of the activities below

E. suggest group presentation critically analyzing available histories of science using the
different models presented above and come to a conclusion about which model is used and
how helpful it is
F. Group work – what do the terms science and technology mean to different people?
G. Science and technology are rooted in differing cosmologies or ways of seeing the world.
Developments in science and technology also alter these cosmologies in a fundamental way.
What are some of the consequences of these changes, taking off from the accounts of changes
as recorded in the histories of science and technology?
H. Individual activity – are there thought collectives forming on social media? what are they
and what do they focus on?
I. Group activity – focus on any of the forms of indigenous science and describe how these
have changed because of the introduction of Western science.
J. Group activity – reconstruct a model of technological change in Philippine history using
both archaeological and historical materials.
LEARNING RESOURCES

1. Hatton, J. and P. Plouffe (eds.). 1997. Science and Its Ways of Knowing. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
1. Grinnell, F. 2009. Everyday Practice of Science (electronic resource): Where intuition and
passion meet objectivity and logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Available online through the
UP Online Resource Base at https://www.mainlib.upd.edu.ph/?q=Oxford%20Titles
2. Klemke et. al. (1998). Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science.. Prometheus
Books, New York.
3. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.(as downloadable online and can be
uploaded on UVLE)
4. Steward, J. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution.
University of Illinois Press, Chicago.(as downloadable online and can be uploaded on UVLE)
5. Your old science textbooks and notes.
6. Your personal experiences of learning, doing and engaging Science and the communities
that practice different Sciences
7. Moshman, D. 2007. Epistemic development and the perils of Pluto. (as provided by Fr
Johnny and uploadable on UVLE)
8. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1986 Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts
Princeton: Princeton University Press ch. 1 pp 15-41