AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY & THEIR UTILITY IN CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL POLITY CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY

NSAMA  JONATHAN SIMUZIYA; ABEBE TIGIRE JALU

doi:10.15407/scine19.04.030

Authors

NSAMA JONATHAN SIMUZIYA Philosophical Faculty, Department of Political Science — University of Hradec Kralove, 62, Rokitanskeho, Hradec Kralove 500 03, Czech Republic https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0183-1052
ABEBE TIGIRE JALU College of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science & International Relations — Addis Ababa University, 6, Kilo Campus, Addis Ababa, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5122-682X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/scine19.04.030

Keywords:

Ethics, Epistemology, Globalization & Technology, Ontology, Sustainable development.

Abstract

Introduction. The central argument of this study is that for science to meet the challenges of globalization and justice in the 21st century, it needs to be ethically informed, and thus philosophical reflection on and in science is cardinal.
Problem Statement. The study focuses on the 21st century trends in philosophical thoughts that influence scientific motivations. To this effect, the research question that the study sought to answer is, ‘How and to what extent can philosophy be valuable/influential to scientific advancements in contemporary times?’
Purpose. This paper aims to demonstrate that despite some differences between science and philosophy in their origin and methodological conceptions, they do have reciprocal rudiments. The study gleaned this relationship with the view to assess the utility of their relationship in a technologically and fast-paced 21st Century. This study contributes to the literature by providing theoretical perspectives that critique conventional (Western) epistemic stances of scientific knowledge construction and highlights lessons to be learnt through a juxtaposed pool of ideas from all regions of the globe, not just from the West.
Material and Methods. The methodology adopted for this study leans on a descriptive and thematic literature approach which builds on qualitative data gathered through academic journals, scholarly books, and online publications. The study review endeavors to focus on the 21st century trends in philosophical thoughts that influence scientific motivations.
Results. The study notes that the relationship between science and philosophy has endured for many hundreds of years, and despite their differences which mainly lie in their scope, attitudes, methods, and peculiar challenges, both are keenly engaged in advancing increased human capacity for innovation, ingenuity, and critical thinking. The study concludes — from the prism of the future — that a critical global appraisal and continuous rigorous review of scientific and philosophical activities is essential today more than ever before, if the futures project is to contri bute effectively to the (re)construction of sustainable frameworks of scientific production that yield results in an equitable and environmentally sustainable manner.

Conclusions. The study has brought to the fore, a stark reminder that neither science nor philosophy — operating singularly — offers genuine solutions on sustainable growth and development; hence stakeholders can make sense of complex phenomenon from both science and philosophy by critically reviewing their outcomes in a reciprocal manner that appreciates the advances, the
gaps, and excesses from both sides. Most significantly, the study has pushed the envelope of comprehending science and philosophy beyond Western constructions that often tend to overlook, and in some cases purposely downgrade orthodox but otherwise valuable scientific insights from subaltern constellations of the global South.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Priest, G. (2020). Philosophy and its History: An Essay in the Philosophy of Philosophy. Analytic Philosophy, 61(4), 297-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12190

Hawking, S., Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1981). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics: Comparative Pathology-Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education. Clarendon Press.

Lewis, G. F., Barnes L. A. (2016). A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316661413

Pigliucci, M. (2008). The borderlands between Science and Philosophy: An Introduction. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 83(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1086/529558

Einstein, A. (1944). Letter from A. Einstein to R. A. Thornton dated 7 December 1944. Unpublished Manuscript.

Dogan, M. (1997). Political Science and other Social Sciences. In: A New Handbook in Political Science. (Eds. Goodin R. E. and Klingemann H.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pradeu, T., Lemoine, M., Khelfaoui, M., Gingras, Y. (2022). Philosophy in Sciences: Can philosophers of science permeate through science and produce scientific knowledge? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (yet to be published article). https://doi.org/10.1086/715518

Skilton, M., Hovsepian F. (2017). The 4th Industrial Revolution: Responding to the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Business. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62479-2_1

Nam, T. (2019). Citizen attitudes about job replacement by robotic automation, Futures, 109, 39-49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.005

Mbembe, A. (2020). "The Paranoia of the Western Mind". Interview. 17 October. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzAnWh-euE (Last accessed: 02.03.2023).

Krymsky, S. B. (2010). 'On the sophistry, truth, meaning of human existence", Collection of scientific, journalistic and philosophical articles, Kyiv: Institute of Philosophy of G.S. Skovorodi. 464 р.

Kopnin, P. V., Lektorsky, V. A. (1973). Gnoseological Aspects of Present-Day Science. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 74, 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70368-4

Inayatullah, S. (2007). Questioning the Future: Methods and Tools for Organisational and Societal Transformation. Tamsui: Tamkang University.

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). An introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Theory and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226300610.001.0001

Risjord, M. (2014). Philosophy of Social Science. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802540

Rosenberg, A. (2005). Philosophy of Science, A contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087060

Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Hutchinson.

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3060577

Sousa, F. J. (2010). Meta-theories in Research: Positivism, Postmodernism, and Critical Realism. Manuscript - University of Madeira. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1594098

Moses, J., Knutsen, T. L. (2007). Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-15997-7

Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.

Tsekhmistro, I. Z. (2001). Implicative logical nature of quantum correlations. Physics-Uspekhi, 44(4), 432-438. https://doi.org/10.1070/PU2001v044n04ABEH000941

Popovych, M. V. (2015). Greeting words of M. V. Popovych, the academic and director of the Institute of Philosophy named after G. S. Skovoroda NAS OF Ukraine. Ukrainian Religious Studies, 73, 17-18. https://doi.org/10.32420/2015.73.451

Mahajan, R. (2003). Full spectrum dominance: US power in Iraq and beyond. Turnaround Publisher Services.

Rumsfeld, D. (2011). Known and Unknown: A Memoir. New York: Penguin Group USA.

Pollock III, Philip, H. (2015). The Essentials of Political Analysis. CQ Press: Washington DC.

Truran, P. (2013). Practical Applications of the Philosophy of Science. Berlin: Springer, Heidelberg.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00452-5

Douglas, H. (2003). The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility). American Philosophy Quarterly, 40(1), 59-68.

Simuziya, N. S. (2021). Universal human rights vs cultural & religious variations: An African perspective. Cogent Arts & Humanities. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2021.1988385 (Last accessed: 02.03.2023).

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1988385

Longino, H. (1983). Beyond "Bad Science": Sceptical Reflections on the Value Freedom of Scientific Inquiry. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 8(1), 7-17.

https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398300800103

Foucault, M. (1994). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.

Calver, N. (2013). Sir Peter Medawar: science, creativity, and popularization of Karl Popper. Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 67 (4), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2013.0022

Avgelis, N. (2020). Lakatos on the Evaluation of Scientific Theories. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, 111, 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3025-4_13

Linklater, A. (2007). Critical Theory. In: International Relations Theory in the 21st Century. (Ed. Griffiths M.). London: Routledge.

Ibrahim, A. A. (2013). The Impact of Globalization on Africa. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 3(15), 85-91.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1936 [1852]). The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers.

Wylie, A. (2003). Why Standpoint Matters. In: Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology (Eds. Figueroa R. and Harding S.). Milton Park: Routledge.

Campbell, L. (1883). The Theaetetus of Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Medawar, P. (1988). The Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Haro, S. (2020). Science and Philosophy: A Love-Hate Relationship.Foundations of Science, 25, 297-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09619-2

Weinberg, S. (2016). To explain the world: The discovery of modern science. New York: Harpel perennial.

Wu Kun. (2016). The Interaction and Convergence of the Philosophy and Science of Information. Philosophies, 1(3), 228-244. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies1030228

Winch, P. (2003). The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (1960). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Li, J., Huang, W. (2019). Paradigm shift in science with tackling global challenges. National Science Review, 6(6), 1091-1093. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz155

Stengers, I. (2008). Experiencing with Refrains: Subjectivity and the Challenge of Escaping Modern Dualism. Subjectivity, 22, 38-59. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2008.6

Osseo-Asare, A. D. (2014). Bitter Roots: The Search for Healing Plants in Africa. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226086163.001.0001

Hegel, G. F. ([1837] 2007). The Philosophy of History. New York: Cosimo, Inc.

Snapp, S. (2022). Decolonization should extend to collaborations, authorship, and co-creation of knowledge. 22 November. Nature, 612, 178.URL:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03822-1 (Last accessed: 02.03.2023).

Brown, M. (2017). Values in Science: Against Epidemic Priority. In: Current Controversies in Values and Science. (Eds. Elliot K. and Steel D.). Milton Park: Routledge, Chapter 4.