Science, Technology and Philosophy
Introduction Science is the study of the laws of nature. Technology is the art and science of using body energy (the energy acquired from food) or energy from external sources (such as biomass and fossil fuels) to process available materials in nature (like stones or soil) for better security, comfort and entertainment. From the human point of view, this processing of materials is at the expense of effort and harm. What is the role of philosophy with respect to science and technology? Philosophy studies the nature, function, methodology and objectives of science and technology with respect to human beings and nature. We have studied this last year. We use technology.
We also hear discussions about the creation, spread and effects of technology. Some say technology will solve all our problems, while others say that technology is the source of our problems and so we must distance ourselves from it. But what does distancing from it really mean? What does science say in this regard? What is the relationship between science and technology? What role does philosophy play with respect to this relationship? We are often confronted by questions like these. We are going to discuss some of these questions in this chapter.
We are also going to peep into history while doing so. We will see how technology has shaped human society. If we look at the living world around us, we realize that humans are the only species which uses technology that requires external energy sources on a massive scale. How has this become possible? What makes us different from the rest of living world? Awareness of Awareness We use technology and we also talk about its pros and cons.
We can do this because we believe that we possess something that other animals do not have and that is the awareness of awareness. Other animals might be aware or conscious but do they have the awareness of awareness? What is it that we call the awareness of awareness? We experience sensations, we think. Not only that, we can think about sensing as well as about thinking itself. We can bring about changes in our thoughts and actions consciously. That is the awareness of awareness.
Man and Nature - Philosophical Perspectives Human beings were just like other animals at the beginning of the journey of evolution. They used physical energy generated from consumed food to obtain food and raise their young ones. In the process of using technology, human beings, in a way, got separated from the rest of nature - they became superior. From the way we human beings think about ourselves, nature and our relationship with nature, three different perspectives emerge - anthropocentrism, biocentrism and ecocentrism. There are several interpretations of these views. Let’s see some of their broad salient features. Anthropocentrism is the view that believes that all of nature exists for the sake of human beings.
This consumption by human being can be of two forms. One, without thinking much about its consequences on the self and the rest of nature; and the other, with the understanding of its consequences. Biocentrism believes that other living beings also possess sentience as human beings. They have an equal right to life as human beings do and human beings ought to avoid any act(s) that can harm other beings. This thought is found in some cultures and religious traditions. Ecocentrism looks at human beings just as a part of nature not isolated and certainly not superior. It holds the view that human beings, if they have the capacity to interfere in or influence the ways of nature, they, ought to do so with utmost care.
Processes and interactions within living and non-living elements in nature occupy a central place in ecocentrism. As far as human knowledge goes at this point in time, the living world found on our planet is unique. The non-living world has shaped the living world and the living world constantly interacts with the non-living world. According to ecocentrism, humans ought to act with due awareness of this. The historical and cultural journeys of mankind reflect all of the above-mentioned perspectives. Religions and traditions reflect these points of view. We are familiar with some of these perspectives. For example, certain tribal communities pray to a tree and ask for its permission before cutting it down. This implies responsible attitude towards nature. It is important to note that no religion encourages unlimited and unrestricted exploitation of resources.
From this perspective, the role of religion is to help human beings, put a brake on uncontrolled consumption. Nevertheless, every religion and cultural tradition has its own unique characteristics. Historical Overview of the ManNature Relationship Historical evidences reveal what stone age man must have believed about himself and the rest of the living world.
Ancient cave paintings, archaeological excavations and research about communities living in remote areas tell us that man used to have different perspectives about nature distinct from ours. Early human beings must have had curiosity, fear and respect towards nature’s forces. For them, rivers, mountains, rain and trees were powers. They probably felt that it was their duty to please these powers. The domestication of plants and animals marked the beginning of Agricultural Age. As this domestication became possible, the idea that these beings are the property of humans found secure roots. Humankind must have started thinking of themselves as the superior masters of these beings. However, this trend too had exceptions in many places.
can keep expanding to encompass the living world in its entirety. Religion forbade human beings from carrying out the uncontrolled exploitation of nature. It also provided guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable conduct. Analyzing the appropriateness of a given action in the light of the laws of nature is an alternative methodology to achieve the same goals. Science deals with objective reality. Objective reality remains unchanged inspite of some individuals disbelieving it. Thus, it is very important to understand the laws of nature in order to deal with the problems in objective reality. For example, Boyle’s Law or Charles’s Law help us predict the weather.
They can warn us of a possible cyclone. Precautions can then be taken to reduce or avoid harm. This is how these laws help us. There are other such laws, too. For example, consider the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter. This law tells us that it is impossible to create something from nothing, like pulling a watch out of thin air. Our individual and societal health depends upon our ability to use these laws for identifying appropriate actions. Actions and experiments carried out in ignorance of such laws can create dangers for individuals and societies. Lysenko’s ‘experiment’ : Trofim Lysenko was an agriculture researcher in Russia. He rejected Mendel’s theory of genetics. He insisted that if one ‘trains’ wheat saplings to withstand cold weather, their progeny will also be cold resistant. Accordingly, Lysenko sent billions of wheat saplings to be ‘educated’ in Siberia. Obviously, his experiment failed. It did not produce the promised yield. This was around 1935.
The Soviet Union was soon forced to import large quantities of wheat from the United States. This illustrates how one can invite calamities if one undermines objective reality - in this case, the theory and law of evolution and genetics. People fall prey to false promises such as ‘doubling the gold.’ Development projects often talk of zero waste in their advertisements. In truth, if any matter is being processed, residual matter or by-products are unavoidable. When these by-products are unwanted, they become ‘waste.’ If we do not want waste, the only alternative is to avoid its creation by avoiding production of goods. Recycling also generates waste.
Technocrats struggle to develop a machine that would keep running using on its own energy or a ‘perpetual motion machine.’ But the study of the laws of nature tells us that such claims are highly improbable. Scientific thinking may have been a part of people’s psyche for a long time. However, science as a collective enterprise began only recently in the history of mankind. The world of science today tells us that science is not something one engages in alone. What is more several people come together, conduct experiments, verify results and create equipment for experiments. In this way, science is a collective effort to understand objective reality. Even so, making our daily decisions about what we ought/ought not to do in the light of the laws of nature, is not a very common practice yet. It is still a new terrain. Some would say that it is not appropriate to expect science to give us behavioural norms and guidelines. Science merely describes the laws of nature.
It is neutral about what one ought or ought not to do. However, if we can’t obtain any insights from scientific principles, what are we gaining? Setting behavioural norms may not be a primary task of science. However, it is important to discuss laws of nature in the light of ethics. In fact the linkage of these laws with conduct falls in the purview of philosophy. But drawing conclusions regarding appropriate action is not always easy. It may not be as straightforward as concluding, ‘Avoid entering the deep sea in cyclonic conditions.’ Sometimes it takes great effort to
ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ಗಳಿಲ್ಲ:
ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಪೋಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಿ