Republic of the Philippines

Bicol University
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
Philosophy Department
Daraga, Albay

Flor, Patrick Vincent

Imperial, Nicole Angela
Lagata, Vonjoseph
Lunas, Krisha Lieza
Murillo, Roy Jello
Rosales, Zeke Gabrielle

AB – PHILOSOPHY III

PHILOSOPHY 39: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

NARRATIVE REPORT FOR THE PRESENTATION ON

“The Contested Character of Science and
Fundamental Questions in Philosophy”

The presentation begins with Imperial exploring the term meaning of “scientism”. She
connects the relation and the differences between “science” and “scientism”, with former being a
systemic study of nature, while the latter, a world view. She further delves on the development of
Scientism, tracing its framework from the philosophical context of Empiricism and its deep
relations with Positivism, paving a path for an underlying negative usage of science. Imperial
further expounds on the report that scientism has boundaries that it often crosses to give spotlight
in the other fields of science as many consider it as a way to encompass natural explanations
regarding existing phenomena that is yet to be validated. As Imperial proceeds to the criticisms
on scientism, she puts forth that it implies that idea that scientists claim all phenomena as a
scientific venture. Moreover, its credibility needs further evidence since its metaphysical nature
will go against the grounds of scientific studies. Also, it avoids interactions or engagements to
many important arguments, rendering it a promotion of fantasy and mythology since its pursuit
of truth is weak.

In the next portions of the presentation, Lagata takes over and presents the matter of
Significant Truths, explaining that it’s the check and balance of scientism, since it requires
liberation from ethical and metaphysical roots on the grounds that these cannot be apprehended
by the scientific method, which is very limiting for a supposedly all-encompassing doctrine.
Lagata reiterates some criticisms of scientism like its indifference to the engagement of vital
arguments. He also expounds on why science seeks significant truths and how scientific activity
is ingrained on the motivation of what we desire and belief. He further tells that as feminist
philosophers said, the history of science is more inclined to the social interests of men who
dominated in the scientific fields, exposing its one-sidedness in research as Lagata provides an
example about the flaws in the research of mating strategies in evolutionary biology, where the
issues raised were on contraception, depression treatments, and other reproductive matters.
Hence, science’s importance was found on a philosophical level where it is affected by social
needs.

In Lunas’ report, she unveils the contributions of feminist studies on science. She
explores its marginalized studies on science and its history on critiquing and providing
reformation on the sciences. She further frames the discussion on the social issues found on
scientific ventures, like the dominance of men in the field paved way for unequal opportunities
for women to study the sciences, the minority on the numbers of women who participate on it,
and other factors. She also interprets on the feminist struggle of objectivity, an attempt to
criticize the feminist studies on science, which eventually failed since it was revealed that
science was no objective field and that feminist lenses on the sciences could actually be rendered
beneficial to its discussions. She further proceeds on the feminist struggle of science in the lens
of the scientific venture as a social issue as women face criticisms in participating in the field
due to stereotypes. Lunas also asserts that the sciences remain a threshold for men, with women
acquiring less pay and least opportunities for promotion, solidifying the fact that scientific
studies were in fact a matter of social controversy. As time progresses, feminist studies on
science upholds a more philosophical nature and it faces numerous shifts as feminist studies
expand on their ventures.

Furthermore, Murillo takes over and expounds on the concept of relativism, a claim
where truth, standards, and morality vary across multiple cultures and there is no universal
criteria for it. Hence, for relativism, science has no objectivity. Moreover, Murillo turns to
Kuhn’s revolutionary view on science that it has no constant truth due to its reliance on paradigm
shifts. Because of this, there is no ideal truth when it comes to knowledge and science has merely
become a worldview. Murillo also discloses how the science contend against relativism, arguing
that science mustn’t be viewed as a product but must be seen as progress and that mistakes are
inevitable and had soon to be corrected if found to be mistaken.

In continuation, Flor opens the topic regarding the Flat Earth Theory. His report
regarding the phenomenon provides theories and justification for the Flat Earth Theory due to
Kuhn’s incommensurability theory, where measurements do not fall into the same standards, and
Relativism, the claim that there is no universal truth. Measurements made by Flat Earth Theorists
differ from scientists since it is based on their raw perception on Earth, making their observations
lack the element of scientific objectivity, since the idea of objectivity refers to the world
independent from personal experience. Yet, Flor contends that it was a good method to
distinguish and interpret scientific theories to make sense of in the phenomenon around us.