CHAPTER 11
Lesson 5: HUMAN FLOURISHING
Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing
Science as Method and Results
Science as Social Endeavor
Science as Results
Science as Education
How Much is Too Much?
Learning outcomes:
Identify different conceptions of human flourishing
Determine the development of the scientific method and validity of
science; and
Critic human flourishing vis-vis progress of science and technology to be
able to define for themselves the meaning of good life.
No. of Hours to complete : 2 Hours
4
6
ENABLING ACTIVITY
TITLE : KNOWING ONESELF
TIME : 10 minutes
MATERIALS : Worksheet and pen
Direction: Enumerate some situations on how would you find your own happiness.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4
7
Topic Discussion:
INTRODUCTION
Eudaimonia, literally "good spirited," is a term coined by renowned Greek philosopher
Aristotle (385-323 BC) to describe the pinnacle of happiness that is attainable by humans. This has
often been translated into "human flourishing" in literature, arguably likening humans to flowers
achieving their full bloom. As discussed in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's human flourishing
arises as a result of different components such as phronesis, friendship, wealth, and power. the
Ancient Greek society, they believe that acquiring these qualities w surely bring the seekers
happiness, which in effect allows them to partake in the greater notion of what we call the Good.
As times change, elements that comprise human flourishing changed, which are subject
to the dynamic social history as written by humans. People found means to live more comfortably,
explore more places, develop more products, and make more money, and then repeating the
process in full circle. In the beginning, early people relied on simple machines to make hunting and
gathering easier. This development allowed them to make grander and more sophisticated
machines to aid them in their endeavors that eventually led to space explorations, medicine
innovations, and ventures of life after death Our concept of human flourishing today proves to be
different from what Aristotle originally perceived then humans of today are expected to become a
"man of the world. He is supposed to situate himself in a global neighborhood, working side by side
among institutions and the government to be able to reach a common goal. Competition as a
means of survival has become passé, coordination IS the new trend.
Interestingly, there exists a discrepancy between eastern and western conception
regarding society and human flourishing It has been observed that western civilization tends to be
more focused on the individual, while those from the east are more community-centnic Human
flourishing as an end then is primarily more of a concern for western civilizations over eastern
ones. This is not to discredit our kinsfolk from the east; perhaps in their view, community takes the
highest regard that the individual should sacrifice himself for the sake of the society. This is
apparent in the Chinese Confucian system or the Japanese Bushido, both of which view the whole
as greater than their components. The Chinese and the Japanese encourage studies of literature,
sciences, and art, not entirely for oneself but in service of a greater cause. The Greek Aristotelian
view, on the other hand, aims for eudaimonia as the ultimate good, there is no indication
whatsoever that Aristotle entailed it instrumental to achieve some other goals. Perhaps, a person
who has achieved such state would want to serve the community, but that is brought upon through
deliberation based on his values rather than his belief that the state is greater than him, and thus Is
only appropriate that he should recognize it as a higher entity worthy of service.
4
8
Nevertheless, such stereotypes cannot be said to be true given the current stance of
globalization Flourishing borders allowed people full access to cultures that as a result, very few
are able to maintain their original philosophies. It is in this regard that we would tackle human
flourishing-in a global perspective and as a man of the world.
Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing
In the previous chapters, contributions of science and technology nave been laid down
thoroughly Every discovery, innovation, and success contributes to our pool of human knowledge.
Perhaps, one of the most prevalent themes is human's perpetual need to locate himself in the
world by finding proofs to trace evolution. The business of uncovering the secrets of the universe
answers the question of our existence and provides us something to look forward to. Having a
particular role, which is uniquely ours, elicits our idea of self-importance. It is in this regard that
human flourishing is deeply intertwined with goal setting relevant to science and technology. In this
case, the latter is relevant as a tool in achieving the former or echoing Heidegger's statement,
technology is a human activity that we excel in as a result of achieving science. Suffice to say that
the end goals of both science and technology and human 1lourishing are related, in that the good
is inherently related to the truth. The following are two concepts about science which ventures its
claim on truth.
Science as Method and Results
For the most part, science s reputation stems from the objectivity brought upon by an arbitrary,
rigid methodology whose very character absolves it from any accusation of prejudice. Such infamy
effectively raised science in a pedestal untouchable by other institutions-its sole claim to reason
and empiricism-garnering Supporters who want to defend it and its ways.
In school, the scientific method is introduced in the earlier part of discussions. Even though the
number of steps varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:
1. Observe and determine if there are unexplained occurrences unfolding.
2. Determine the problem and identify factors involved.
3. Through past knowledge of similar instance, formulate hypothesis that could explain the
said phenomenon Ideally, the goal is to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis 1or the study "to count as significant" (can also be separated into additional
steps such as "to generate prediction or to infer from past experiments)
4
9
4. Conduct experiment by setting up dependent and independent variables, and trying to see
how independent ones affect dependent ones.
5. Gather and analyze results throughout and upon culminate of the experiment. Examine if
the data gathered are significant enough to conclude results.
6. Formulate conclusion and provide recommendation in case others would want to broaden
the study.
At least in the students formative years, the above routine is basic methodology when
introducing them to experimentation and empiricism- two distinct features that give science edge
over other schools of thought Throughout the course of history, however, there exists heavy
objections n the scientific procedure, the line separating science and the so-called pseudoscience
becomes more muddled.
Verification Theory
The earliest criterion that distinguishes philosophy and science is verification theory The
idea proposes that a discipline is science if it Can be confirmed or interpreted in the event of an
alternative hypothesis being accepted. In that regard, said theory gives premium to empiricism and
only takes into account those results which are measurable and experiments which are repeatable.
This was espoused by a movement in the early twentieth century called Vienna Circle, a
group of scholars who believed that only those which can be observed should be regarded as
meaningful and reject those which cannot be directly accessed meaningless . Initially, this proved to
be attractive due to general consensus from people, which happened to see for themselves how
the experiment occurred, solidifying its validity and garnering supporters from esteemed figures. lts
shortcomings, however, proved to be a somewhat to0 risky several budding theories that lack
empirical results might be shot down prematurely, causing slower innovation and punishing
ingenuity of newer, novel thoughts. Celebrated discoveries in physics, Tor instance, are initially
theorized without proper acknowledgment of their being. Einstein's theory on the existence of
gravitational waves would, following this thought, be dismissed due to lack of evidence almost a
hundred years ago. Quantum mechanics would not have prospered if the scientific society during
the time of Edwin Schrödinger did not entertain his outrageous thought that the cat in the box is
both dead and alive, which can only be determined once you look in the box yourself.
Aside from above critique, this theory completely fails to weed out bogus arguments that explain
things coincidentally. A classic example is astrology, whose followers are able to employ the verification
method in ascertaining its reliability The idea is that since one already has some sort of expectations on
what to find, they will interpret events in line with said expectations. American philosopher Thomas Kuhn
warned us against bridging the gap between evidence and theory by attempting to interpret the former
according to our own biases, that is, whether or no we subscribe to the theory. Below is a short story
illustrating this point :
5
0
Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a (not-so scientific) theory
that her classmate lan likes her. Good, she thought, I like him too But how
do I know that he likes me?
She began by observing him and his interactions with her Several
gestures she noted include his always exchanging pleasantries with her
whenever they bump into each other his big smile when he sees her, and
him going out of his way to greet her even when riding a jeepney, Through
these observations, she was then able to conclude that lan does like her
because, she thought, why would anyone do something like that for a
person he does not like?
As it tums out, however, lan is just generally happy to meet people he knew. He had
known Lea since they were in first year and regards her as a generally okay person. It is no
surprise then that upon learning that lan basically does this to everyone, Lea was crushed. She
vowed to herself that she would never assume again.
Based from above story, is it justified for Lea to think that lan does not like her Not quite
The next criterion also warns us about the danger of this view
Falsification Theory
Perhaps the Current prevalent methodology in science, falsification theory asserts that as
long as an ideology is not proven to be false and can best explain a phenomenon over alternative
theories, we should accept the said ideology Due to its hospitable character, the shift to this theory
allowed emergence of theories otherwise rejected by verification theory It does not promote
ultimate adoption of one theory but instead encourages research in order to determine which
among the theories can stand the test of falsification. The strongest one is that which is able to
remain upheld amidst various tests, while being able to make particularly risky predictions about
the world. Karl Popper is the known proponent of this view. He was notorious for stating that up-
and-coming theories of the time, such as Man's Theory of Social History and Sigmund Freud's
Psychoanalysis, are not testable and thus not falsifiable, and subsequently questioning their status
as scientific. Albeit majority of scientists nowadays are more inclined to be Popperian in their
beliefs, this theory, similar to the theory above, presents certain dangers by interpreting an
otherwise independent evidence in light ot their pet theory.
To illustrate, previous story is restated:
Ian is generally everybody's friend. He likes to be around people
and generally aspires to become everybody’s friend. However, there is this
one girl, Lea, who seemed to not like him when he is around. Every time
he waves at CT She tums away, and when they are in the same room,
She avoids his glances. Through this, he concluded that Lea s not like him
5
1
and does his best to show her that he is not a threat. He began greeting
her whenever they pass by Cach other at the corridor, even going so far
as calling her attention when he was in the jeepney and saw her walking
past. When they are able to talk to each other, he found out that Lea is just
really shy and is not accustomed to people greeting her. He then was able
to conclude that his initial impression of her not liking him (as a person) is
wrong and thus said proposition is rejected.
Although there is no happy ending yet for Lea and lan, we can thus see how in this case,
falsification method is prone to the same generalizations committed by the verification method.
There is no known rule as to the number of instance that a theory is rejected or falsified in order for
it to be set aside. Similarly, there is no assurance that observable event or evidences are indeed
manifestations of a certain concept or "theories." Thus, even though, theoretically, falsification
method is more accepted, scientists are still not convinced that it should be regarded as what
makes a discipline scientific
Science as a Social Endeavor
Due to inconclusiveness ol the methodologies previously cited, new school of thought on
the proper demarcation criterion of science emerged. Several philosophers such as Paul Thagard,
Imre Lakatos, Helen Longino, David Bloor, and Kicnard Korty, among others, presented a
alternative demarcationthat explores the social dimension of science and effectively, technology.
Science, cease to belong solely to gown wearing, bespectacled scientists at laboratories. The new
view perpetuates a dimension which generally benefits the society. For instance, far-off places in
South America where many of the tribes remain uncontacted, do not regard western science as
their science. Whatever their science is, it can be ascertained that it is in no way inferior to that of
globalized peoples science. Thus, it presents an alternative notion that goes beyond the
boundaries of cold, hard facts of science and instead projects it in a different light, such as a
manifestation of shared experience forging solidarity over communities.
Science and Results
For the most part, people who do not understand science are won over when the
discipline is able to produce results. Similar to when Jesus performed miracles and garnered
followers, people are sold over the capacity of science to do stuff they cannot fully comprehend. In
this particular argument, however, science is not the only discipline which is able to produce
results-religion, luck, and human randomness are some of 11s contemporaries in the field For
some communities without access science, they can turn to divination and superstition and still get
the same results. Science is not entirely foolproof, such that it is correct 100% of the time Weather
reports, for one, illustrate fallibility and limitations of their scope, as well as their inability to predict
disasters. The best that can be done during an upcoming disaster is to reinforce materials to be
more calamity proof and restore the area upon impact. It can be then concluded that science does
not monopolize the claim for definite results.
5
2
Science as Education
Aforementioned discussion notes that there is no such thin8 as a singular scientific
method, offering instead a variety of procedures that scientists can experiment with to get results
and call them science. Discoveries in physics, specifically in quantum mechanics, appeared to
have debunked the idea of objectivity in reality, subscribing instead to alternative idea called inter
subjectivity With objectivity gone, it has lost its number one credence. Nevertheless, there still
exists a repressing concept that comes about as a result of unjustified irreverence of science-our
preference of science-inclined students over those which are less adept Chapter 11 Science,
Technology, and Society and the Human Condition.
There are distinct portions in entrance exams in the secondary and tertiary 1evels that are
dedicated to science and mathematics. In the Philippines a large distribution of science high
schools can be found and over the Country, forging competition for aspiring students to secure a
slot and undergo rigorous science and mathematics training base on specialized curricula.
Although arguable as these schools also take great consideration in providing holistic education by
assuring that other non-science courses are covered, adeptness in science and mathematics are
ne primary condition to be admitted. This preference is also reflected on the amount OSIEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-offering Schools accommodating Grades 1l and
12 Among all the clusters being offered, STEM trumps the remaining clusters in terms of popularity
and distribution, with Accounting and Business coming in as a close second One might infer that
there are more demand in this field as students are preconditioned that the field would latter land
them high-paying jobs and a lucrative career after graduation.
How is science perceived by those who graduated from this field? A couple of years ago,
a student entered a class all curious and excited. When he was made to report on Paul
Feyerabend's work How to Defend Society Against Science one day, he looked dissident,
Staunchly refusing to consider the author's ideas on science and critiquing him instead. When
asked why, he reasoned out that he had come from a science high school and was trained to
regard science in a distinct accord. AS 1Solated a case as it may seem, it somewhat suggests that
the aforementioned kind of academic environment has made students unwelcoming of objections
against Reminiscent of Paul Feyerabend sentiments above, he muses how the educational system
can hone and preserve Students capacity to entertain other options and decide for themselves the
best among all ne will thus reinforce their imagination and allow some level of unorthodoxy bringing
forth novel discoveries that otherwise would not be considered had they stuck to the default
methodology Innovations are brought forth several notable figures in by the visionaries, not the
prude legalists, and several nota science even consider themselves as outsiders.
5
3
MAIN TASK
TITLE : Brainstorming Activity
TIME : 15 minutes
MATERIALS : Worksheet and pen
Direction: Answer the following questions with your own understanding. Write your answers in the
space provided.
1. Is our reverence of Science justified? Explain?
2. What are the consequences of Human Flourishing?
3. What virtue are needed to achieve a good happy flourishing and fulfilling life?
5
4
SUMMARY
Human flourishing is defined as being "good spirited in the classical Aristotelian notion.
Humans generally have a notion on what t1lourish, albeit in the advent of science and technology,
they chose to hinge their ends alongside the latter's results. While it is true that science equips 1s
knowers some details about the world, its main claim to objectivity and systematic methodology is
at the very least flawed. However, that does not stop institutions to favor those who excel in said
discipline. Finally, the economic perception of enrichment, otherwise known as growth, is heavily
fueled by technology and should be impeded. We have to rethink of our perception of a good life
apart from one presented in this regard.
REINFORCEMENT
Research Work
1. State a history or discovery that brought about the invention or discovery of the things
stated below. State their contributions in our scientific development.
a. Gravity f. Benzene Ring
b. Telescope g. Large Hadron Collider
c. Processed Food h. Guns
d. Microscope i. Internet
e. Radio j. Cellphones
REFERENCES:
Janice Patria Javier Serafica, et als. First Edition, 2018, Science, Technology, and Society,
Published by Rex BookStore.
5
5
