STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE.

Science, Technology and Philosophy

By Daniel L. Espiritu

We have always heard or read “science” and “technology” going together. And just
hearing one of the two reminds us of the other. At times, it looks like they are used
interchangeably. What exactly is science? What precisely is technology? Here’s what some
experts tell us:

• “Science encompasses the systematic

study of the structure and behaviour of the National Security Policy
physical and natural world through (2017-2002), 16.
observation and experiment,
and technology is the application of Scientific and
scientific knowledge for practical technological
purposes.” (Oxford Reference, 2022). breakthroughs are
creating wealth and
• “…the goal of science is the pursuit of
knowledge for its own sake while the goal progress everywhere,
of technology is to create products that but are also spawning
solve problems and improve human life. new and increasingly
Simply put, technology is the practical
application of science.” (Diffen, n.d.).
dangerous triggers for
global insecurity.
• “If the goal of science is the pursuit of Among the most
knowledge for science’s sake, technology serious of these
aims to create systems to meet the needs
threats is the
of people. Science has a quest of explaining
something, while technology is leaning proliferation of
more towards developing a use for weapons of mass
something.” (DB.net, 2022) destruction (WMDs)…

From the above descriptions, we can infer this (one can make other inferences, of
course): We can indeed distinguish science and technology but in truth we cannot, or should
not, separate them. Technology is dependent on science, and without technology, science
would be in effect just increasing human knowledge and not transforming human life.

Now, who would deny the fact that today’s science and technology have radically
transformed us, human beings (even non-human beings and the physical universe)? Pause
here for a minute or two and think of the many radical ways by which science and
technology have changed our lives.

Not a few years ago, PMA cadets would line up for long in the library to check out
books and magazines. Today how many cadets and instructors need the books and

1
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE.

magazines in the PMA library? Everyone has a laptop computer or a cell phone! And some
instructors used to complain about the dangerous-to-one’s-health chalk dust from the
blackboard. Today we have classroom LED monitors.

But, let us ask, have science and technology truly improved the quality of people’s
lives?

PMA cadets have debated that question for some years in their Philosophy classes.
Here are the most common answers to the question this writer has heard from cadets:

• Science and technology have improved the quality of human life.

• Science and technology have ruined the quality of human life.
• Science and technology have only to a certain degree improved the quality of
human life.
• Science and technology have neither improved nor ruined the quality of human
life. It is those behind science and technology—the human beings who use it—
who are to be praised or blamed for the effects of science and technology.

In this writer’s view (which is not God’s eye-view!) contemporary science and
technology have indeed improved much of life—the speed of communication,
transportation, and the production of various gadgets has amazingly increased, such that
human beings have now supposedly more time for rest and creation, more time for
reflection, more time for creating and maintaining relationships, more time for listening and
caring, and even more time for worship. But, is that true?

Let’s go more specific to make our discussion more practical. Has your family
relationships significantly improved this year because now you have the latest gadget—say,
a digital washing machine, laptop computer, cell phone, TV, etc.? Have your dad and mom
become remarkably “sweeter,” or have you become amazingly closer to them because
today you have Facebook and Instagram, or because now you can video call each other?
Some may readily answer these questions with a Yes. But most probably many people
would respond, I doubt or simply No.

Science and technology have limits

Science and technology, like any other creation of finite, human beings have
limitations. Science and technology have solved many human problems, but these cannot —
contrary to what some think, as we shall explain below—solve all human ills. (Or, if we want
to be precise: Human beings have solved many human problems with the use of modern or
contemporary science and technology but have not and would not solve all problems with
their use of science and technology).

2
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE.

As one PMA officer, now a retired general, said in one of our Philosophy course-
conferences (we were then talking about the AFP Modernization program and the PMA
curriculum), “The latest tank—great. The latest jet fighter—great. But the pilot behind the
jet must also be ‘modernized’.” And by “modernized” he meant an educated, well-
transformed person, a pilot of impeccable integrity.

Can science and technology “modernize” the person behind the tank or jet? Well,
someone (Hughes, 2018) has recently written: “science can tell us how things are
empirically, but it can’t prescribe how we should then live…. In short: science helps us live
longer, whereas philosophy helps us live better.” Similarly, the historian and philosopher
William Durant (1961, xxvii) wrote: “Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces
the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war; but only wisdom—desire
coordinated in the light of all experience—can tell us when to heal and when to kill.” He
further said, “Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation, cannot
save us from havoc and despair. Science gives us knowledge, but only Philosophy can give us
wisdom.” Philosophy is something we cannot do without!

Invited to a Ted Talk conference, the famed late Billy Graham (2008) presented the
“problems that technology has not and cannot solve.” The three problems, according to
him, are (1) Human evil. Graham asked, why do we have wars in every generation? “We
have gone deep into the ocean and probed the galaxies but we have not successfully probed
the human heart,” he told his audience of business and technology experts. There’s so much
racism, injustice, and violence. How do we change man, so that he would not lie, cheat or
steal? (2) The problem of human suffering. There’s much suffering in the world. Modern
science and technology have not prevented WW1 and WW2 (which have caused so much
more human and even non-human suffering). The awesome speed in transportation and
speed in communication (both produced by today’s science and technology) have not
prevented accidents and misunderstanding causing more suffering; (3) Death. After
thousands of years of human existence and human thinking and effort to find the cure for
death, to find the “elixir of life,” people still die.

A Philosophy professor, Brian Elwood (2001, p. 61) likewise writes: “Many have
observed a strange loss of meaning in our lives as technological devices replace human
activities. The indomitable authority of science and the manipulations of technology seem of
little help to us before this loss of meaning. They are impotent when we are confronted with
nihility.” Elwood is talking about, in more simple terms, the loneliness that is experienced by
many around the world, including the richest people. The technological inventions have not
helped to comfort and make life meaningful to many people.

Furthermore, according to Elwood (2001), despite the abundance of scientific

knowledge and technology today, we are still faced with so many social problems and much
violence in our society. Science and technology have not help solve or minimize the many
problems in our society.

3
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE.

We have the common thinking that science is detached, neutral, and objective. But it
is not. The philosopher of science of great reputation Karl Popper tells us that science is not
merely a “body of facts [but] a collection [of data] dependent upon the collector’s interests,
upon a point of view… [upon] a scientific theory” (Popper, p. 259). “All scientific
descriptions of facts are highly selective….” (Popper, p. 260). To see the truth of what
Popper is saying, you may take a look at any thesis or dissertation or research paper in the
library or online and you will notice that it has a “Theoretical/Conceptual Framework,” a
“Limitation of the Study,” and “Definition of Terms.” All these guided and directed the
researcher or writer. The fact is, all scientific conclusions, descriptions and theories are
partial, perspectival, and provisional. No scientist can ever arrive at the absolute, final
description of reality. And thus, to believe that science is the Savior of mankind and the
universe is not science, but Scientism.

What is Scientism?
Commune is a good word. But communism—well, for most us, it is a negative one.
Race is another good-looking word. But racism is repulsive. Self is a pretty neutral word, but
“selfism” is obviously not! The suffix -
ism makes some words refer to
extremes, to unwanted,
Science without philosophy, facts unacceptable matters. You know the
without perspective and valuation, next point: science is a good thing,
cannot save us from havoc and but scientism is not.
despair. Science gives us knowledge, So, what is Scientism? It is the
but only Philosophy can give us belief that, among other things, the
wisdom. methods of natural science are the
only legitimate methods and that all
WILL DURANT
other disciplines should adopt these
methods. In addition, it is the belief that (Moreland, 2018) “the hard sciences—like
chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality,”
that “scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline.”
It is in this connection that acupuncture used to be despised by many in the West and even
in the Philippines; acupuncture was thought to be non- or un-scientific. And still many
Filipinos would rather buy medicine from the drugstore than use traditional medicinal herbs
for medicine because the latter is “not scientific.”

There is no arguing that science has greatly contributed much good to human life.
But science is not the Way, the Truth and the Life. Despite the many phenomenal
contributions of science, it alone cannot and does not lead us to Truth and abundant life.

4
 STRICTLY FOR PMA PHI 232 USE ONLY. PLS DO NOT REPRODUCE.

Scientism is idolatry; it is the deification of science, which is a very human—and therefore

limited, partial, and provisional—undertaking.