Lesson 1: Antecedents Redefining Science Towards Society Overview: Technology being lavished by today's society would not be possible without the scientific, method originating from 17" century Enlightenment. Just lke the technology it helped develop, the definition of Science has grown through the years, Science had outgrown the box of Rationalism and Empiricism, and have gained much more Values through learning from history and listening to the community it caters to. This module introduces the rationale for this development, from the epistemic to the sociological, and ultimately leading the 20" century Science to a “Post-Normal" attitude for the sake of stakeholder democracy. Learning Outcomes: After successful Completion of this module, you should be able to: + Recognize the subtleties of knowledge generation in the scientific method. + Oulline the critiques regarding the limitations of science throughout its applied history. + Differentiate between the Normal and Post-Normal thinking of defining Science. Course Material: A. INTRODUCING THE SUBTLETIES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE Pursuing a science degree rather than a degree in the arts is a choice of personal growth. Both are pursued to expand one’s knowledge in application to their possible career in the future, Both BS and BA contain vast bodies of knowledge to explore, however a distinction between the two is necessary. This distinction could be traced to historicity: with the arts and humanities as the precursor staple for schools since the ancient times — and the science label only emerging later in the 17" century. This distinction is also a divergence in method: the ‘success of the Scientific Method for generating workable knowledge warranted a different category from the more liberal and open approaches of the arts. We leam from elementary that this method basically is a repeating cycle of observation, questioning, hypothesizing and testing. Today, this method of science is applied more broadly, from social sciences such as business, economics and human psychology to the natural sciences like medicine, physics and biology. Its growth as evidenced by the multitude of its application and the leaps achieved by its technology had propelled the Scientific Method as the consensus source of knowledge.Because of all these achievements, Science seems to have transcended the Humanities and its previous Philosophical roots ... or does it? As the main point in discussing the subtlety i now as Science still has its Philosophical underpinnings despite having diverged from traditional ‘Scientific’ knowledge, what we celebrate Philosophy. Knowledge were traditionally scrutinized under the sub-branch of Philosophy called Epistemology. Epistemology debated how we came to know what we know, and tried to define the limits of our knowing, Science have parted to the multitude of possibilities presented in Epistemology by adhering to two epistemological principles: Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism posits that adopted beliefs should be based on reason and knowledge rather than religious beliefs or emotional response. Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge ‘comes from sense experience. Forming a hypothesis based on an observation, setting a replicable experiment, and the rational interpretation of the results are all in the spirit of Rationalism and Empiricism, Together, these principles qualify if a certain statement or knowledge can be considered Scientific. Up till now, these two principles remain at the core of Science. However certain qualities of the whole Scientific enterprise are stil questionable and were further refined and redefined through history. Firstly, from the Rationalist and Empirical roots of science comes the contentious criteria for “Verification.” To verify that something exists, or occurred through observation and rationale looks like a straightforward application of rational and empirical thought. In fact, this had been the dominant criterion for Science since its conception by the 17" century enlightenment philosophers up to the 1920's logical positivists. The common theme shared by these philosophers and scientists were their absolute confidence in certainty: they believed that the scientific method is infallible and would certainly reveal absolute Truths. As claimed by the logical positivists of the 1920's: only the things that can be verified through the scientific method can be considered as True Knowledge. They also proclaimed that only analytical philosophy, that is based on formal logic and math, can be legitimate as a component of scientific discourse.‘An opposite rational notion to this confidence in the Infallibility of Science had been presented quite early during the enlightenment. In the 17" century, David Hume have already criticized the Inductive methods Science use in ‘drawing its empirical conclusions. Induction is a method where x ‘one's experiences and observations, including what are Zz leamed from others, are synthesized to come up with a ¢ general truth, Hume argued that induction only offers probability and not certainty. One could ascertain that all ‘swans are white, but this is only until a black swan appears. HUME Therefore, scientific truths could be peer verified and be valid only up until an anomalous deviation is reported. Furthermore, The problem of this questions the empiricist notion that “seeing” is akin to 4 is $ induction proving. It is always possible that what one "sees is influenced by his cultural and educational conditioning. It is difficult to escape all these presuppositions about the world, and therefore equally impossible to describe all observational reports as perfectly “objective.” This skepticism of Induction was properly accepted in 19th century science by the arguments of Karl Popper. In 1934, Popper suggested that a "Falsification Theory" would be a more sensible way of thinking about the scientific procedure. In his view, scientific theories should include an inherent feature of transparency: it should always be open to be proved false by contradictory incidents. Instead of gauging scientific knowledge within a consensus of Verification’, a more genuine “Falsifiability’ should distinguish what science is from non- science. As with Hume, Popper disagreed about traditional Induction which had become the basis for all generalizations in science. For Popper, there is no such thing as the final truth in science. Instead, scientific progress is achieved by a series of “Conjectures and Refutations", much like the open access and peer review in today’s science journals. According to him, this self-critical spirit, an inherent Skepticism, should be the essence of all sciences.Karl Popper belongs to the Post-war science philosophers redefining the previous 200 years of Science left inspired by the 17" century Enlightenment. Another one was Thomas Kuhn, whose 1962's work "The Structures of Scie Prescience Revolutions” reframed science using a generalized ) historical approach. His elaboration on the concept of Paradigm Normal Paradigm shifts” changed the traditional picture of (Change Science ‘science from a progressive, gradual and cumulative acquisition of knowledge towards a more relativistic The Kuhn and dogmatic enterprise. In "Structures....", Kuhn Cycle Model wanted to know what science is really like — in its Model Drift actual practice — in a concrete and empirical way. He Revolution Model A suggests that far from discovering truth, scientists Crisis actually solve puzzles within pre-established world views. The term “paradigm” suggests that some accepted examples of scientific practice — which have produced theory, law, application and instrumentation — provide the models from which springs the zeitgeist of scientific research. This operating paradigm later “shifts” as historically exampled in previous rubrics such as “Ptolemaic Astronomy" later changing into “Copernican Astronomy’, “Aristotelian dynamics" later changing into "Newtonian dynamics", “Corpuscular Optics" later changing into “Wave Optics” and so on. Aside from "Paradigm Shifts", another important terminology taken from Kuhn's picture of Science had become central to the current 20" century. The term "Normal" science, originated from Kuhn's scheme, became the precursor of what we now call the “Post-Normal” condition of 20" century science. Kuhn coined the term ‘Normal Science” as the status-quo state where scientists do their work routinely as prescribed within the present doctrinal paradigm. Within the state of Karl Popper Thomas Kuhn “Normal Science," scientist use the current paradigm to refine theories, explain puzzling data, establish increasingly precise measures of standards, and other necessary work that ‘expands the boundaries of the current paradigm. Thenafter, this serene stability of normal science will be presented with an irresolvable crisis —a black swan - that is irresolvable using the current paradigm. A certain point will be reached where this crisis can only be solved by a Revolution. This new “Revolutionary Science” will then take over with the old paradigm giving way for the newer one, However, this once revolutionary idea will then become the new orthodoxy. And the cycle of a new, better fitted Revolutionary idea is deemed to rise in order to solve another projected crisis yet again. Popper's inclusion of skepticism in the definition of science blurred the certainty in Scientific verification, yet it was tolerated as an adequate rational alternative to an absolute Positivist notion. However, Kuhn's reframing of Science as a changing, dogmatic enterprise was initially met with great controversy. Instead of the 17" century Enlightenment inspired stature of Science, it suggested that science is far from the heroic, open-minded, disinterested seekers of Truth in nature and reality. Kuhn's idea of a “Normal Science" reframed the science community as a specialized priesthood that promotes their own specific denominational theologies. Only later in the 1970s that Kuhn's work was finally accepted as revolutionary. Upon surviving the debates and discussions with his contemporaries, Kuhn’s "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" had successfully altered the absolute certainty of the following epistemic notions in Science: a.) Realism — Kuhn had defended that the conclusions of science are independent of what is real of the world. That science is not the only unique endeavor that aims to discover the world. ‘And that there is not only one single best description of each aspect in reality. b.)Demarcation — Kuhn argued that there is no solid distinction between scientific theories and other kinds of belief. c.) Cumulative — that science is cumulative and builds on what is already established. Kuhn noted that established ideas might just as well be a false start, but at its best, science can only build on it regardless, 4d.) Theory/observation distinction — Kuhn cited the persistent contrast between theoretical prediction and statements from observational reports. e.) Foundations — Kuhn denied that hypothesis and theories are made true by the basis of ‘observation and experiment as its singular foundation. £.) Deductive structure of theories — Kuhn opposed the actuality of theories as a fully deductive construct, He believed that theories are more than just deductions from the observational reports and well-established postulates, g.) Precision - Kuhn showed that the terms used in science does not have fixed meanings and that scientific concepts are not always precise.h.) Discovery and Justification — Kuhn does not believe that there are separate contexts between discovery and justification. The psychological or social circumstances in which discoveries are made is indistinguishable from the logical basis used when justifying belief of facts that have been discovered. i.) Unity of Science — Kuhn opposed the ideology that there should be one science about our one real world; he also rejected that the less profound sciences are reducible to the more profound ones — such as the ideas that psychology is reducible to biology, biology reducible to chemistry, and chemistry reducible to physics. Kuhn's arguments against the traditional perceptions inherent to Science are openly debatable up to this point in time. Regardless, facing Kuhn's work is important in the accountability of science if t really aims to be an instrument of Truth. Today, academic science still works through Rationalistic and Empirical motivations. However, through Popper, Kuhn and ‘contemporary Philosophers of Science, the Scientific enterprise now proceeds with more caution on its desires to discover absoluteness and atain unquestionable universality Skepticism within its assumptions, theories, results and establishment, is now seen as an integral part within the Scientific process. Now more than ever, as we shall see in the next section, a defined “Post-Normal" condition of science is necessary in order to proceed scientific “Progress” alongside these epistemological doubts. Moreover, just as Popper and Kuhn, another forefront of thinkers became involved with characterizing science during the dawn of the 20" century. In the next section, sociologists and the humanities have joined the audit - Science had become more than a specialized academic discipline for scientists — as the humanities redefined it closer to society, becoming less detached to its own business, and exposing that its enterprise is also characteristically human. B. REDIFING SCIENCE WITH SOCIOLOGY, PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY In the Philippines, a 2019 survey done by Emerson Electric Co, found that 91 percent of Filipino respondents are interested on pursuing STEM careers, a figure three times more than the previous generations. This shows how people are curious behind the science of the technology they are living with. From being a specialized field of very few experts in the 1700s, 20" century Science now impacts people's daily lives and the projections of their future. A functioning society today is unimaginable without technology delivered with science. And as an essential part of people's lives, Science is intertwined within all sociological aspects.From being an exclusive epistemological problem, a second redefinition of Science ‘came from the branch of humanities: Sociology — which is the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society. Does science affect society? Surely so, as we see with our endeared interaction with technology. But is the reverse true? Does society affect science? Or is science truly absolute and universal; transcending all our socio-cultural concems? These questions are of concern to Sociology. And as Science grew more and more to People’s personal lives, the more issues are being exposed, both good and bad, from the actual practice of Science in the 20" century economy. You will tackle more of these specific issues as you elaborate within the STS course, but here are some general antecedents that demanded action from Society — whose lives are increasingly affected, both positively and negatively, by the decisions surrounding Scientific endeavors. a.) Environmental Concerns — the end of the 2 world war was punctuated by the superior weapon, the Nuclear/Atomic bomb, which ended the war and punctuated the Nuclear age. The war stopping must be seen as a positive thing, but the fallout experienced by Japan by the end of 1945 had become one of the graphic examples of how the unforeseen long-term effects of applied science could impact generations for years to come. The development of the nuclear bomb was urgent, and was deployed just three weeks after its pilot testing. Admittedly, the scientists had only focused on the physics of how the bomb will work, and that is of course, how to make the bomb explode successfully. Scientists were not really concemed of the biological effects it may bring such as DNA mutations, immune system damages and cancer. Today may be different with war, yet the same blinding urgency could be the same within the demands of Industry. Cutting costs to margin a profit may ultimately translate into short-cutting waste treatment in the factories. Furthermore, every advance in science ushers towards new and hidden dangers. One of the most contentious is Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Altering genes might not only affect the desired change, but also disrupt the whole genetic machinery of the organism. Since gene expression results from a complex — and little understood- physiological process, the real effects of a new gene in an organism is unknowable. What we do not want is an eco-catastrophe resulting from these uncharted areas of ignorance. 10Instead of being ignorant of our ignorance, cost-effective courses of action must be designed in advance in order to contain these possible worst-case scenarios. b.) Commodification of Science — the source of funding perhaps is the most obvious way values enter science. Funding often influences the choice of problem to be investigated. If funding is coming from a government source, then it will reflect the priorities of the government; Whether space exploration is more important than the health problems of the poor, whether nuclear power should be developed rather than solar energy. The private- sector funding on the other hand, are naturally geared towards research that would eventually bring profit. By the 1990s, corporations funded more than half of the research in the US. The market and private sector now drive scientific and technological advances and determines what does and does not get funded. When profit determine its direction, Science becomes just another commodity produced for sale. This commodification of Science can be seen in the major shift from physics to biology in the post-Cold War era — no private firm supported a major particle accelerator, whereas mapping of the human genome was eagerly propelled by private interests in both US and UK. Since there are no immediate profits to be made from discovering a new elementary particle, the human genome, which is an inexhaustible mine of innovative and marketable products, became their priority investment. Commercially driven science also means a research bias; that is, we get to know one area at the expense of being ignorant with the others. This means that the problems of the Third World, where there are limited profits, gets neglected by research attention. Furthermore, the profit chasing of science has produced a goldrush system for patents which can be devastating to small rural economies. Commercially driven science is involved in patenting non-Western genetic, indigenous knowledge and ancient leaming. Filipino Jasmine rice, Mexican Beans, Bolivian quinoa, Indian Neem Tree, West Africa's sweet potatoes — all have been subjects of predatory intellectual claims. Under the guise of “research’, scientific profiteers move into indigenous communities to pilfer, patent and sell their “inventions” to the larger enterprises. ¢.) Cultural, Racial Discrimination and Gender Biases — perhaps to the tone of 20" century Social Media, accusations of cultural, racial and gender discrimination had been the social issue at the forefront. Attitudes of cultural discrimination in Science occurred early during the Colonialism period. Wester Science adopted specific policies towards non-Western sciences during the colonial era. They assumed that no other sciences could generate the alaws of gravity or antibiotics and only Western science could discover all laws of nature. This is despite the fact that Western science appropriated and integrated non-Western science without acknowledgement and recycling them as their own. Islamic scholars that had progressed science went unacknowledged as Western Scientists build on their initial ideas — instead, the Islamic Golden Age was initially masked and called as “The Dark Ages” in early Western History Another form of cultural bias was the argued ethnocentticity present in the ideas of Science. In Wester Science for example, nature is seen as hostile, something to be dominated and conquered. This view of nature sharply contrasts with other cultures and civilizations. In Chinese culture, nature is seen as an autonomous self-organizing entity Which includes humanity as its integral part. In Islam, nature is a trust, something to be respected and cultivated; people and environment are a continuum and an integrated whole. Furthermore, it seemed that certain laws of science, as Indian physicists have begun to demonstrate, are formulated in an ethnocentric and racist way. The second law of thermodynamics for example, contains a definition of efficiency that favors high temperatures and the allocation of resources to big industry. This implies that work done at ordinary temperatures, in smaller scales such as rural economies, is by definition inefficient. Feminist scholarship of science also suggested that the focus on quantitative measure, analysis of variation and impersonal, excessively abstract, conceptual schemes is both a distinctively masculine tendency and also one that serves to hide its own gendered character. They suggest that there is indeed an inherent anti-woman content in science practice. According to Margaret Wertheim, “one reason more women don't become scientists is precisely because they find much of its content irrelevant to their lives.” That is because gender stereotyping begins in the cradle and accumulates through childhood, adolescence and adulthood to discourage women and encourage men to adopt thinking and motor activities necessary for skills in scientific, mathematical and engineering work. Moreover, they claimed that most women scientists in industry are primarily found in the lower echelons of scientific enterprise, doing rank-and-file work in laboratories; and that Woman scientists running their own laboratories are extremely rare with only few who can find resources for their independent research. C. DIFFERENTIATING THE PROPER MODES OF SCIENCE 2This module aimed to present an introductory critique of Science. We aim to present a more HIGH critical and humanistic view of the entific activit through our brief discussion of its history, epistemology, and some of its DECISION i contemporary sociological issues. STAKES We hope that presenting these areas of critique provide more insight and clarity for science ~ Professional Consultancy student majors as they persevere pues in their future careers. This exposition also serves as basis for Low SISTEM ‘uicu | PostNormal Science, a UNCERTAINTIES manifestation of a more open and democratic science for the 20" century. Post-Normal Science (PNS) begins with the realization that we need a new style of science. The old image, where empirical data led to true conclusions and scientific reasoning led to correct policies is no longer comprehensive. PNS was developed in the mid-1980s by Silvio O, Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz who portrayed three different problem-solving strategies in risk assessment: applied science, professional consultancy, and PNS. Each strategy fits different anticipated levels of stakes and Uncertainties in a decision or a project. When both system uncertainties and decision stakes are low, applied science or the “normal” way of science can continue its routine work. This is in accordance to the description of Kuhn where Scientists solve problems using the current paradigm; within their peer group of shared assumptions and disciplinary methods. However, normal science puzzle solving is inadequate when stakes or uncertainties rise toa medium level. Professional consultancy is more appropriate under these conditions. Professional consultancy, the typical strategy of senior engineers and surgeons, involves uncertainty and stakeholder awareness, along with skills and judgement in the problem-solving approach, Nonetheless both of these strategies are inadequate when facing Post-Normal conditions. If the decision or project contains irreducible complexity, deep uncertainties, a plurality of legitimate perspectives, value dissent, high stakes, and decision urgency — a Post-Normal approach should be employed. The main difference between the “normal” and “post-normal” modes, is their contrasting conceptions of the very objective of science. In normal science the goal is. knowledge, and quality equals certainty, not robustness. In PNS quality is the goal, not Bknowledge. Quality is not only about the product but also includes process, people, and purposes when information is to be fit for sustainable decision-making Post-normal Science thus is a methodology involving an extended peer community, both internally and externally. The aim is to extend outside one’s own internal expertise and make multiple disciplines work together on the assessment of quality and uncertainty. This extension includes all representatives from all relevant stakeholders by involving them in the steps of problem framing, choices of monitored indicators, and ensuing quality assurance. This means that Science should involve broader notions of facts, including for example leaked documents, local experiences, and information provided by investigative journalists. Bringing an extended peer community safeguards Science against the pitfalls it had ignored in the past: from errors ‘such as tunnel vision (a too narrow framing of the problem to make it fit a single disciplinary approach) and Type Il errors (a problem framing error leading to the assessment of the wrong problem). ‘A main challenge is that agreeing to the nature of the problem may cause internal dispute. There could be dissent when it comes to assessing the degree of stakes and uncertainties of a given issue. The management of these plural legitimate perspectives therefore should be prioritized in order to make each stakeholder engage in constructive and open dialogue; cultivating mutual learning despite different disciplinary backgrounds, conflicting interests, and value disputes. Despite this political difficulty, Post-Normal science is a necessity for quality and should be pursued in a democratic world that moves forward alongside Science. Further Readings: * Bird, A. (2018), Thomas Kuhn, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved from . ‘Little, D., "Philosophy of History’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved from . * Longino, Helen, "The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved from . Activities/Assessments: 41. Reflect on your personal motivations and reasons why you took a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics course. What are the different things that you expect to learn in STEM that you would not have found on other courses? Are there any difference with the quality of knowledge gained from STEM than in other programs? And why do you think so? In pop culture, it seems that villains are half of the time scientist. Why do popular perceptions of scientists differ so radically from the brillant pioneers that discovery channel and the encyclopedia portray them to be? Do you think people trust science? Are scientists a threat to humanity and nature? How would scientist build trust from society? The management of these plural legitimate perspectives in Post-Normal Science is an arduous bargain within the stake holders. The idea is for each stakeholder to engage in constructive and open dialogue. How would you facilitate such situation? What would be the best strategy for encouraging cooperation between scientists, government and the people? 15