Science: A Social and Cultural Examination - Essay Example

?Science: A Social and Cultural Examination Introduction When looking at the progress scientific discoveries have made, people wonder in amazement how such things were possible. Looking around, in every aspect of human society, science has brought many changes in how the way people view and take life as well as the environment they live in. People in general will give much credit to science for most of today’s conveniences and technological advances. However, it can also be said that society and culture has dictated the development of scientific movements. The thesis statement is that scientific development has been influenced by social and cultural mores. Looking back at the historical developments of various civilizations, there are evidences that scientific progress was actually determined by the social and cultural norms of people. This paper will explore the historical evidences for this phenomenon. Even until today, it seems that developments in science have actually been determined by the demands of society or the cultural trends and movements. The issue at hand is whether or not scientific discoveries and advancement is decided by socio-cultural mores, or otherwise. Scientific Development and Society When looking upon the things humanity has today, people would typically say that science dictated the inception of such developments. Seeing buildings like the ancient temples of the past civilizations to the tall skyscrapers of the contemporary metropolis of today, people are amazed the creations science and technology has made for humanity. However, it can be said that science is actually a means by which society uses to progress in civilization. There are evidences or findings that indicate that, in truth, science was actually shaped by the social norms of culture. For example, one can appreciate the scientific and engineering marvels of the ancient Egyptian civilization. Ancient Egyptian structures such as the Great Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza still stand to this day, viewed as engineering marvels created by Egyptian scientific technology. A close examination on ancient Egyptian society and cultural norms indicates that it was not science that created the lasting architectural and engineering marvels until today. As White (2003) posited: It is very easy for the modern citizen of a technologically dependent society to assume that the social structure and human interactions are being driven by the unfettered, and often unintentional, consequences of a spiral of accelerating technological developments. Likewise, it has become fashionable for warnings of the potential evils of technology to be screamed from the pages of prophetic socio-political novels and science fiction films. However, on the contrary, a careful study of the history of technology shows that, rather than it being the driver of society, indeed society’s values, motivations, beliefs, and worldview drive and shape the evolution of technology (p.16) It was indicated through such sociological and historical accounts that science was strongly depended and tied to the culture of a society, and it could not be completely autonomous without it. Take the Great Sphinx and the Pyramids of Egypt, and even the pyramids of the ancient tribes of South America by the Aztecs and Incans, for example. These marvellous and lasting structures were not created as scientific test-beds or experiments. On the contrary, and perhaps with a tinge of irony, the science of engineering made by ancient Egyptians, the Aztecs, or the Incans, were largely developed due to the demands of cultural norms. Using the pyramids of the ancient Egyptians and the ancient South American tribes as examples, it can be said that the basis for their engineering science would have been likely less possible if it were not the fact that their society demanded a grand structure of religious worship. Science became the means of society to express its social norms and cultural mores, and made to last as long as possible throughout the ages. As Latour (1998) observed, “science and society cannot be separated, they depend on the same foundation since they are like two branches of power defined by the same constitution: If you alter the separation of powers, you immediately alter both the view of what science is and of what society can do” (p. 208). Science is dependent on society to help shape civilization, whether it may be cultural or pragmatic demands. In a more modern or current setting, the development of high rise buildings are there to meet society’s demands for more living space. This means that the sciences of architectural design must also be in line with such demands by society. In its earliest conceptions and inventions, science was developed for a purpose far more practical than the pursuit of new knowledge. As important as finding new discoveries for the sake of learning is held highly by science, the need and demand for society to be more convenient and lasting has been a very strong factor why science has kept on progressing. By making life more convenient for people, science has provided humanity a wide breath of opportunities to deal with various societal problems and issues to create and expand cultural movements and forces, as well as to improve living conditions and lifestyle. For example, Bergman (1985) stated “the really major steps that lie ahead in conquering disease are in brand new fields: bioelectronics, or new kinds of biochemistry that may even eliminate some forms of disease, and, to get better care, discovery must be initiated and urgently encouraged” (p.37). However, this can also backfire if used the wrong way, and would lead to problems and chaos. In the more contemporary setting, for example, the early conception of modern robotic technology was conceived by the society’s demands for more efficient and convenient labour power. Robotic technology would bring a great deal of ease by doing tasks that are seen as greatly demanding for human beings to deal with, or it would take a ratio for a number of human individuals to work on. With the introduction of robots into society, there can be more tasks done and at a greater pace and efficiency. Factories, farms and laboratories today currently make use of robots to fulfil tasks easier than people did. However, for Asimov (1985a): The question then is: What is going to happen with robotics in the future? Well, as we all know, it’s going to create a certain amount of economic dislocation. Jobs will disappear as industries become robotized. (p.62) While the society did demand the need for the science of robotics to be developed, it was society as well that will be affected by the negative consequences as a result for such scientific developments. Asimov would imply that the use of robotics in industrial settings would lead to a massive loss of jobs for people, resulting to discontent as laid off workers find difficulty in having to earn for their livelihood. There is also the issue on how the science of space exploration would affect social and cultural nuances. The idea of space exploration can be admitted as a real or true scientific quest, or as a matter of academic affairs. Despite the pressing issue of the world’s population steadily increasing, the need for further space exploration is not seen as a highly focused issue. However, recent interests on space sciences are actually more concerned about people’s curiosity on the possibility of life beyond our own world. Asimov (1985b) said that “if Earth-like planets exist, then they probably have developed life, if there are this many life-bearing planets, one of them should develop intelligent life, and perhaps one of these has developed a technological civilization that we can detect or, perhaps, they are trying to contact us” (p.87). The implications if such a scientific discovery was made would indeed cause a massive change in the way most cultural beliefs are today, and even change the way humanity thinks of itself in the massive universe. In some cases, scientific discoveries were actually affected or delayed due to social pressure. When some scientific invention or discovery threatens a cultural norm or social belief, the powerful pillars and echelons of society will resist or threaten, forcing such movements of science to either drop or compromise such findings. For example, the theory in astronomy of the sun being the centre of the solar system made by Copernicus and Galileo was greatly frowned and rejected by society at that time because it threatened the influence and prestige of the Roman Catholic Church. In the case of Galileo, Machamer (2009) pointed that “specifically, he had been charged with teaching and defending the Copernican doctrine that holds that the Sun is at the center of the universe and that the earth moves, and this doctrine had been deemed heretical in 1616, and Copernicus' book had placed on the index of prohibited books, pending correction”. The Roman Catholic Church asserted the Ptolemaic theory that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. It was only until years later on that the heliocentric theory was accepted as true to both fact and science. Another point that should be considered is that developments in science have also political causes and implications with regards to its utility. Scientific discoveries were either catalysts for political and social movements, or were used merely assets for political actions. For example, the telegraph made communication faster than human travel. This was created so that communication messages could be sent faster to destinations for better coordination of state administrative or political actions. Russell (1968) provided this observation: The fact that messages could travel faster than human beings was useful, above all, to the police. Before the telegraph, a highwayman on a galloping horse could escape to a place where his crime had not yet been heard of, and this made it very much harder to catch him. Unfortunately, however, the men whom the police wish to catch are frequently benefactors of mankind. If the telegraph had existed, Polycrates would have caught Pythagoras, the Athenian government would have caught Anaxagoras, the Pope would have caught William of Occam, and Pitt would have caught Tom Paine when he fled to France in 1792. A large proportion of the best Germans and Russians have suffered under Hitler and Stalin; many more would have escaped but for the rapid transmission of messages. The increased power of the police therefore, is not wholly a gain (p.23) From that citing, even political forces have its way in the development of science as well. As there is a need for society, a civilization will use science to find such means to do so. By this claim, it would mean that science is heavily utilized as a tool or asset for society. While scientific development would like to bring changes in society, these changes are sometimes responded with very different and various reactions. In a historical view, certain civilizations were more advanced than others when it came to science. Some of these civilizations would meet others and try to share such knowledge that benefitted their society. Sometimes, the response can go both ends. Burke (1985) made this interesting observation: The chain of events back in the twelfth century that set Europe going economically after the Dark Ages was essentially the textile revolution. A new loom came in from Arab Spain. It had foot pedals, which left the weaver’s hands free to weave faster and make more cloth cheaper. The Dutch weavers smashed the thing up because it would have put people out of work. (That was a new idea in the twelfth century.) A generation later, when the dust had settled, in came the spinning wheel from left field-a total surprise from China. It made thread very much faster than before. When the wheel and the loom were put together, the production of cloth skyrocketed. So there were more riots, because the cloth was linen, which was made from a plant and was cheaper than feeding sheep and making wool, so the rioters were sheep farmers (pp.8-9). Movement in scientific innovations can also be developed, or rejected, depending on the social situation in a certain civilization whether cultural or practical. Conclusion After going over several historical references and finding examples from current events, it can understood that science has been made the means of culture and society to continually thrive since the dawn of civilization. Science could not have been developed if society was not interested in doing so. From the pyramids of Egypt to the sprawling urban metropolis, it can be said that the marvels of today’s architectural and engineering wonders were due to the demands of a society that wanted more convenience. Humans wanted to travel around the world? They developed sailing and navigation sciences. They wanted to travel faster? They developed aviation sciences. It was the necessity of social demands that scientific discoveries happened. If there were no social and a cultural demand, the level of scientific advancement humanity has been enjoying now may not have been possible. References Asimov, I. (1985). Our future in the cosmos – computers. In NASA Langley Research Center’s (Ed.), Impact of science on society (pp.59-75). Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Asimov, I. (1985). Our future in the cosmos – space. In NASA Langley Research Center’s (Ed.), Impact of science on society (pp.79-96). Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Bergman, J. (1985). Accomplishments of science by the year 2000. In NASA Langley Research Center’s (Ed.), Impact of science on society (pp.33-55). Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Burke, J. (1985). The legacy of science. In NASA Langley Research Center’s (Ed.), Impact of science on society (pp.3-30). Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Latour, B. (1998). Essays on science and society: from the world of science to the world of research? Science, 280(5361), pp-208-209 Machamer, P. (2009), Galileo Galilei. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/#4 Russell, B. (1968). The impact of science on society. New York: AMS Press. White, B.L. (2003). Ancient Egypt provides an early example of how a society’s worldview drives engineering and the development of science. Oakland: Strategic Technology Institute. Read More