FATIMA JOY L.

ANTIPALA
Instructor
Module 2:
Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition
LESSON 1

Human Flourishing
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the module, you must be able to;
a. Identify different conceptions of human flourishing;
b. Determine the development of the scientific method and validity of science; and
c. Critic human flourishing vis-à-vis progress of science and technology to be able to define for
themselves the meaning of a good life.

Introduction:
This lesson focusses on the human flourishing towards the usage of technology. This lesson
also depicts the results of every theory we made. Science and technology could help us to
explain and change our perception of a good life.

Let’s Dig Deeper

What is Human Flourishing?

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. 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 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 means of survival has become passé;
coordination as 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-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 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 nana,
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 see the community, but that is brought upon through deliberation based on his values
rather than his belief that the state is greater than him, und tu 1S 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 as and as a man of the world.

Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing

In the previous module, 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 of finding
proofs to trace evolution. The business of uncovering the secrets of the universe answers the
question of our existence and provides 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 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 or Steps varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:

1. Observe and determine that 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 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 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 i 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 an 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 acknowledgement 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 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 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 Ian 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
Ian does like her because, she thought, why would anyone do something that for a person.
he does not like?

Based from above story, is it justified for Lea to think that Ian does not like her? Not quite. The next
criterion also warms 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 o 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:

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 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 Ian, 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 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, Dayid 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 t0 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 it, it can be ascertained that it is in no way inferior to that of
globalize peoples' science. Thus, it presents an alternative notion that goes beyond the boundaries
of cold, hard facts or science and instead projects 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 1009% 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 to 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, and 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 in 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 USC 1or them to pursue it holistically.
Simply mastering science and technology would be inadequate it we are to, say, socialize with
people or ruminate on our inner self. Aristotle is 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 p0or 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.

You have now reached the end of Module 2 Lesson 1.

Congratulations! Did you enjoy studying this module? Did you
learn a lot from it? 