BUENAVISTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Cangawa, Buenavista, Bohol

College of Teacher Education
Department
Tel. No. (63) 102726564

______________________________________________________________________________
Topic: Human Flourishing

MODULE 5

I. LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:

1. identify different conceptions of human flourishing;

2. determine the development of the scientific method and validity of science; and
3. critic human flourishing vis-a-vis progress of science and technology to be able to define for
themselves the meaning of a good life.

II.OVERVIEW

This module emphasizes the role of science and technology in human flourishing. It
highlights the term eudamonia which was coined a renowned Greek philosopher Aristotle which
plays a significant role in the development of science and technology across the world. This also
highlights the theories that pertains to science and different definition of science in varying
fields.

III. LEARNING CONTENTS

A. Introduction
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

1
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
subject to the dynamic social history as written by humans. People found means to live more
comfortably, explore more places, 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 as a means of
survival has become passé; coordination 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
hand, 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 serve the community, but that is brought upon through deliberation based on
his values rather than his belief that the state is greater than him, and thus is 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 and as a man of
the world.

B. Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing

In the previous chapters, 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 by finding proofs to trace evolution. The business of uncovering the secrets
of the universe answers the question of our existence and provides us 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

2
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
 Formulate conclusion and provide
recommendation

Gather and analyze results

Conduct experiment

Formulate hypothesis

Determine the problem

Observe

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.

C. 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 of steps
varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:
Figure 1. Scientific Method

1. Observe and determine if 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.

3
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
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 if 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 and experiments which are
repeatable. This was espoused by a movement in 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 acknowledgment 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 Schrödinger 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:

4
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
 Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a (not-so- scientific) theory that her classmate
lan 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 lan does like her because,
she thought, why would anyone do something like that for a person he does not like? As it
turns out, however, lan is just generally happy to meet people he knew. He had known Lea
since they were in first year and regards her as a generally okay person. It is no surprise then
that upon learning that lan basically does this to everyone, Lea was crushed. She vowed to
herself that she would never assume again. Based from above story, is it justified for Lea to
think that lan does not like her? Not quite. The next criterion also warns 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 upand-coming theories of 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:

lan 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 to 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 lan, 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

5
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
"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.

D. 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, David 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 to 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 is, it can be ascertained that it is in no way inferior to that of
globalized peoples' science. Thus, it presents an alternative notion that goes beyond the
boundaries of cold, hard facts of science and instead projects it in a different light, such as a
manifestation of shared experience forging solidarity over communities.
E. 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 100% 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.

F. 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
scienceour 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

6
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
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, 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 sense for them to pursue it
holistically. Simply mastering science and technology would be inadequate if we are to, say,
socialize with people or ruminate on our inner self. Aristotle's 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 poor 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.

G. 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

7
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte
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.

IV. ACTIVITY GUIDE

ACTIVITY NO. 4

NAME: _______________________YR. & SEC. _______________SCORE: _________

SUBJECT: ____________________________ DATE: ____________________________

Directions: Answer the following questions. Write your answers in a yellow paper.
I. Explanation
1. What would have happened to humankind if technology did not exist ?
2. Were we successful so far in trying to tie down technology with what we conceive as
human flourishing?
3. What do you think constitutes human flourishing and how are science, technology and
human flourishing interrelated to one another?

V. RESOURCES
J. Serafica et.al (2018). Science, Technology, and Society

8
Course Title: Science, Technology and Society Instructor: Roe-ann Reponte