TOPIC 2.

Ways of Knowing (and Doing)

in Science and Technology[1]
Introduction
 
What you think is evidence of what you know? But how do we know that?
How do we know what we know? And does this always translate to what we
do? Is your knowledge of the world around you a fact, opinion, or judgement
of what you sense? In this case ask: What is a FACT, OPINION, and
JUDGEMENT? How are these established?
 

A. What is a Fact? How Do Societies Create a Scientific

Fact?
There are several ways of understanding what constitutes a fact. The
positivist approach holds that facts are self-evident, that they are simply
there. Thus, physical phenomena that manifest themselves visibly are
held to be factual; their existence cannot be doubted inasmuch as they are
confirmed by the senses. On the other hand, a constructionist approach
holds that facts are socially created; facts are facts once people agree that
these things constitute a fact.

This distinction is important in understanding the beginnings of science. How

did scientists come to create or build a consensus on what was important to
understand and what was not? In part, this was due to the accumulation of
knowledge through the written word and partly due also to the use of
experimentation and observation to test hypotheses.

Ludwik Fleck (1979) pointed out that facts are created not in and of
themselves but as a result of the cognition of their existence. Such cognition
is in turn a collective activity, since it is based on a body of knowledge
shared with other people. This exchange or sharing of ideas creates what he
calls a thought collective. The thought collective creates a collective
mood, and as a result of both understanding and misunderstandings, creates
its own peculiar thought style. As the thought collective becomes more and
more complex and sophisticated, it divides itself into the esoteric, the
professionals and the exoteric or the laypeople. A thought style in turn
has both the active elements, which shape the way people think about the
world, and the passive elements, which the members of the thought
collective hold to be objective reality. Facts in this sense are actually
social constructs, the reality of which are likely to change over time as
more and more work is put into the ideas shared by the collective. It is also
the nature of the uniqueness of the thought collectives that they are
incommensurable; that is, they may not be meaningful to each other to
varying degrees. For example, what is a fact to one collective may not be
meaningful or even false to another thought collective. Thought styles are,
however, not immutable or immune to change. Thought styles may
change once the realization sets in that there are several
phenomena that are not accounted for in the standard way of
thinking.
 
To understand about scientific facts, and how are they being created, I want
you to study the materials below. The first material is produced by Waseda
University, a research university in central Tokyo. It talks about scientific
facts from different perspectives. It also presents different types of facts. The
material also discusses how societies constructed facts and the genesis and
development of facts as Ludwik Fleck discussed about it.
 
The second material is a video-lecture of Dr. Luis Rey Velasco on the process
of producing a scientific knowledge. Dr. Velasco is a professor of UP Los
Baños, specializing on entomology, and he has published several papers in
both ISI and non-ISI journals. His talk is focused on the characteristics of
scientific knowledge, on certain alternative paradigms, and on scientific
process.

1. Waseda University. What is a Scientific Fact? Available

from http://www.f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Omnibus_Science_Sidoli_01.pdf

2. Dr. Luis Rey Velasco. Science Process and the Generation of Scientific
Knowledge. Available from http://tvup.ph/?p=2506

[All notes are printed]

B. What is the relation between science and

technology and society?
 

The word scientist today has many meanings. The most common meaning is
that of the detached, impersonal and objective person wearing glasses and
socially awkward most of the time. This is partly a caricature of the research
scientist, a popular in mass media from the twentieth century onwards. The
scientist is also seen as the gatekeeper of often mysterious and arcane
knowledge, knowledge that could be either helpful or harmful. In this respect
the scientist is often equated with the priest or priestess, the holder of
seemingly supernatural wisdom. In the “normal” view, scientists and
therefore science was about the pure seeking of knowledge for its own
sake, in the hope that one day it would be put to use. However, a
“post-normal” view has scientists (and therefore the sciences) providing
immediate solutions to problems faced by society.

To understand the relation between the science, technology, and society, I

want you to study the material below.

 
Krishna, V.V. (2013). Changing Social Relations between Science and
Society: Contemporary Challenges. Available from https://halshs.archives-
ouvertes.fr/halshs-00910707/document

The material discusses the social institution of science and technology, which
currently has been considered to evolve into as one of the most
powerful, highly influential, and sought out institutions globally.  As
the author emphasizes, “Knowledge as public good; peer review of
science; prominence attached to open publications; and premium
placed on professional recognition and scientific autonomy
remained the hall mark of science for the last three centuries.”
According to her, there is an evolution on the social contract between
science and society in the last six decades given such ethos of science. The
paper also presents the changes that the social institution of science
underwent as we enter the second decade of 21st century. Three societal
forces were discussed as drivers for this change: a) globalization; b)
industrial and post-industrial society; and c) climate change.

Notes for the reading:

ABSTRACT
- Social history of modern science, particularly the way it acquired social legitimacy
clearly depicts the science and society relationships emerging from the time of
Galileo.
- The social institution of science has evolved as one of the most powerful, highly
influential and sought out institutions.
 - Knowledge as public good; peer review of science; prominence attached to open
publications; and premium placed on professional recognition and scientific autonomy
remained the hall mark of science for the last three centuries.
- Based on this ethos of science, the social institution of science evolved a unique social
contract between science and society in the last six decades.
- As we enter the second decade of 21st century, the social institution of science is
undergoing a major change.
o 3 societal forces are responsible for the change: a) globalization; b) industrial
and post-industrial society; and c) climate change. What is at stake? Is there a
significant change? Is it transforming the very social institution of science? And
what implications this has for our contemporary and future society? T
CONCLUSION
[Printed]