Giving Science a Human Face
In the above lines I have made an attempt to
examine the fundamentals, dissect — in some historical depth
— the assumptions inherent in the prevalent modern science
and technology. I have also briefly outlined the utter
dissatisfaction which some eminent intellectuals around the
world are feeling and freely expressing with regard to
science operating as a single-eyed giant devouring all
intrinsic values and spiritual perspectives. It is now
almost a truism that science has moulded people’s mind as
much as people have moulded science. The call is almost
being sounded for a New science. Modern conventional
science has made the condition of its acceptance the
rejection of metaphysics and intrinsic values and it is this
condition which has alienated man from the total cosmic
reality, and has resulted in the atomized, depersonalized,
mechanized, world in which we live today. The imperative
question in this situation is: How can we regain our lost
identity and give science a human face?
The answer to this dilemma lies in the new
awareness about science and the scientific methodology. One
need not revert to a romanticized past. Atavism and
“prettifying” can be nothing more than patchwork. The
central argument of this essay lies here: nothing short of
giving science a human face will achieve the desired
results. A façade or a mask will not serve the purpose.
Any attempt to humanize science must recognize that our
present physical and spiritual crisis is a logical outcome
of the worship of shallow empiricism and the divorce of
values from knowledge. A marriage between physics and
metaphysics would be timely affair leading science back to
nature away from the bogus empiricism which undermines it at
present. I, for one, have absolutely no doubt that the
traditional metaphysical wisdom can very well perform the
task of articulating a unity of meaning for today’s world.
Wisdom, however, is not naiveté, but unity of meaning gained
after one has crossed complexity and multiplicity.
Happily in recent studies in the philosophy of
social sciences the focus on multiculturalism or
perspectivisim also lends support to the position I have
advocated in this paper. Implicit in much previous
philosophizing about social inquiry was the presupposition
that natural science is the benchmark against which all
cognitive endeavours must be measured. But in the current
intellectual climate natural science has lost this
privileged position. The reasons for this are complex: they
include the abuses of Big Science by governments and
industry in such areas as nuclear armament; the dangers of
technology inspired by the natural sciences, dangers which
portend ecological disasters; widespread awareness of
alternative forms of knowing; and the somewhat uninspiring
picture that the sciences paint of humans existing in a cold
and indifferent universe. This has led to the emergence of
perspectivism in cognitive science and social debates. At
this point suffice it to say that, in opposition to
positivism which conceives science as the method
par excellence for seeing Reality directly, perspectivism
asserts that every epistemic endeavour — including science —
takes place from a point of view defined by its own
intellectual and socio-political commitment and interests.
Even in the natural sciences the influence of theoretical
and cultural points of view now seem unquestionable. True,
science is the preferred approach in the ‘West’ where it has
gained hegemony and in the process silenced many
alternatives. But this just shows that those in the West
value the sorts of achievements made possible by science (in
particular, the technical control of nature). However, this
does not prove that science is inherently superior as a way
of knowing.
<<Previous Page |
Back to Table of Contents |
Back to Top
| Next Page >> |
