LESSON 1 HUMAN FLOURISHING

LESSON OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
+ identify different conceptions of human flourishing;
+ determine the development of the scientific method and validity of science; and
+ critic human flourishing vis-a-vis progress of science and technology to be able to
define for themselves the meaning of a good life.

..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 phonesis, friendship, wealth, and power. In the Ancient Greek
society, they believe that acquiring these qualities will 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 cast are
more community-centric. 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 cast; 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.

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 have 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
flourishing 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 a
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 for 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. 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 culmination 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 Ieast 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 on 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 the 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 as 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. Its shortcomings, however, proved
to be a somewhat too 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, for 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 Schrodinger 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 En 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 not we subscribe to the
theory. Below is a short story illustrating this point:

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 iow 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 turns 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 Marx'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 of their pet theory.

To illustrate, previous story is restated:

lan 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 her, she turns
away, and when they are in the same room, she avoids his glances. Through this, he
concluded that Lea does not like him and does his best to show her that he is not a
threat. He began greeting her whenever they pass by each 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 rile 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 of the methodologies previously cited, a 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
Richard Rorty, among others, presented an alternative demarcation that explores the
social dimension of science and effectively, technology. Sciences cease to belong
solely 10 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 its contemporaries in the field. For some communities without access to
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.

Science as Education
Aforementioned discussion notes that there is no such thing 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 10 have debunked the idea of objectivity in reality, subscribing
instead to alternative idea called intersubjectivity. 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.

There are distinct portions in entrance exams in the secondary and tertiary levels
that are dedicated to science and mathematics. In the Philippines, a large distribution
of science high schools can be found all over the country, forging competition for
aspiring students to secure a slot and undergo rigorous science and mathematics
training based 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 the primary
condition to be admitted. This preference is also reflected on the amount of STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-offering schools accommodating
Grades 11 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 ir a distinct accord. As isolated
a case as it may seem, it somewhat suggests that the aforementioned kind of
academic environment has made students unwelcoming of objections against
science. Reminiscent of Paul Feyerabend's sentiment 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 presented. It 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 by the visionaries, not the prude
legalists, and several notable figures in science even consider themselves as
outsiders.

If one is really in pursuit of human flourishing, it would make sense for them to
pursue it holistically. Simply mastering science and technology would be inadequate
if we are to, say, socialize with people or ruminate on our inner self. Aristotle's
eudaimonic person is required to be knowledgeable about science, among other
things of equal importance.
They are supposed to possess intellectual virtues that will enable them to determine
truth from falsehood or good reasoning from poor reasoning. A true eudaimon
recognizes that flourishing requires one to excel in various dimensions, such as
linguistic, kinetic, artistic, and socio-civic. Thus, he understands that he should not
focus on one aspect alone.

How Much Is Too Much?

In 2000, world leaders signed the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that targets
eight concerns, one of which states that they should be able to forge a global
partnership for development. Inasmuch as the institutes imposing them do so in good
faith, the primary goal to achieve growth for all might prove to be fatal in the long
run.

Economists believe that growth is the primary indicator of development, as both go

hand in hand, and has put forth their resources in trying to achieve such. Technology
has been a primary instrument in enabling them to pursue said goal, utilizing
resources, machineries, and labor. What is missing in this equation is that growth
presents an illusory notion of sustainability-the world's resources can only provide so
much, it cannot be expected to stretch out for everybody's consumption over a long
period of time. Moreover, growth is not infinite-there is no preordained ceiling once
the ball starts rolling. If the MDG convention's intent was to get everyone in the
growth ship, that ship will surely sink before leaving the port. The same analogy
applies to the capacity of nature to accommodate us, which Joseph Hickel
contemplated on, suggesting that developed countries should not push forth more
growth but instead adopt "de-development" policies or else, everybody loses. The
rapid pace of technological growth allows no room for nature to recuperate, resulting
in exploitation and irreversible damages to nature. Right now, we are experiencing
repercussions of said exploits in the hands of man-made climate change, which
would snowball and affect majority of flora and fauna, driving half of the latter extinct
in less than a hundred year from now. If this continues in its currently alarming rate,
we might bring about our own extinction.

•SUMMARY
Human flourishing is defined as being "good spirited" in the classical Aristotelian
notion. Humans generally have a notion on what it means to flourish; 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 its 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.