MODULE 1

Overview and History of Philosophy of Science,

Technology, and Society

INTRODUCTION

Module 1 introduces concepts and definitions of science, technology, and society. The
focus is on their interrelationships and interconnectedness, its natures and significance
in modern society, and its capacity in transforming lives. It also surveys the history,
development, and the impact of science and technology to human societies. This
module also discusses how humans acquire, produce, and develop knowledge to
understand the unknown. The faculty-in-charge will facilitate both synchronous and
asynchronous learning activities in this module.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

● Define Science, Technology and Society through a particular tradition of thinking
● Discuss the interrelationship of Science, Technology, and Society within the
context of social concerns and issues.
● Explain how knowledge develops; and
● Apply epistemological perspectives in understanding a particular social concern
or issue

Module Output:

In this module, you are required to read the required readings and encouraged to read
the supplemental readings. You will also provide the following outputs:
A. Topic 1
1. Pre-activity table that defines science, technology and society
2. Concept map that summarizes what is STS based on the readings
B. Topic 2
1. Self-survey
2. Journal reflection
I. What is the meaning of Science, Technology, and
Society?

LAUNCH

REMEMBER AND UNDERSTAND

In preparation for the discussion, read the following key texts that will help you revisit
and re-examine the idea or meaning of “Science” and “Technology”.

1. McGinn, R. 2002. Science Technology and Society. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Chapter 2 (“Science and Technology: Their natures and relationship”, pp 13-29)

2. How science and technology are for society

https://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/03/1302821_
002.pdf
3. Hatton, J. and P. Plouffe (eds.). 1997. Science and Its Ways of Knowing.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
a. Chapter 1 (Carl Sagan. “Can we know the Universe”; http://www.inf.fu-
berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Sagan-KnowTheUniverse.pdf )
b. Chapter 2 (Robert Pirsig. “On scientific method”
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/kkh/natsgc/PDFs-2013/Robert-Pirsig-On-
Scientific-Method.pdf )

While reading these key texts take note of the following questions:

● What is Science? Technology? Society? What are the roles that S&T play
in society?
● What is the nature and relationship of S & T in each time period?
● How does Science and Technology influence the economic, military,
medicine, political, religious or ethical, or philosophical currents in a given
time?
● How did STS develop as a field of study? Why was there a need for STS
as a field of study?
 BUILD

EXPLAIN

“Science” and “Technology” have been defined for us in our formative years through
different learning media. Both are pervasive in society, and thus are usually taken for
granted. We often compartmentalize them, and rarely critically examine their
relationship to and in society.

Generally, we take “Science” to mean “an organized body of knowledge”, and

“Technology” as the “application of this organized body of knowledge for the benefit of
humankind”. However, and as you hopefully realize, they mean a whole lot more, and
that how they are understood plays a crucial role in social processes, societal histories
and current and future societal undertakings.

The reading materials assigned for this lesson give you different views and perspectives
in defining science and technology. Perhaps you have noted some. Write the meanings
of Science, Technology, and Society to the table below. You may include your prior
knowledge that pertains to each.

SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY

Using the definitions you have provided above, can you discuss the relationship of
Science and Technology? You may also use the concepts discussed in the learning
materials provided.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

We all know that science and technology contribute to society. The interrelationship of
the two create knowledge for the progress and success of human lives. Science can be
considered as the foundation strength of societies that is continuously building upon.
But what really is the importance of science and technology in contemporary society?
Can you give an example?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

ELABORATE

The word scientist today has many meanings. The most common meaning is that of the
detached, impersonal, and objective person wearing glasses and socially awkward most
of the time. This is partly a caricature of the research scientist, popular in mass media
from the twentieth century onwards. The scientist is also seen as the gatekeeper of
often mysterious and arcane knowledge, a knowledge that could be either helpful or
harmful. In this respect, the scientist is often equated with the priest or priestess, the
holder of seemingly supernatural wisdom. In the “normal” view, scientists and therefore
science was about the pure seeking of knowledge for its own sake, in the hope that one
day it would be put to use. However, a “post-normal” view has scientists (and therefore
the sciences) providing immediate solutions to problems faced by society.

To contextualize this, read Saloma’s “My Expectation of a Filipino Scientist” to know

more about the importance of science as a way of knowing and scientists in the
Philippines. The article can be found here: https://ovpaa.up.edu.ph/my-expectations-of-
the-filipino-scientist-by-caesar-
saloma/?fbclid=IwAR2sGdj6AMiMHK332Bv39KYZtjDtmljkaB-
NFtDQTSTlpt5IePqYez901JM

Use the following questions as you go through the reading material:

1. What is the status of producing knowledge or science in the Philippines?
2. Why Saloma expects from Filipino scientists?
3. Why is there a need for a culture of science in the Philippines?

ANALYZE

With all the materials, can you create a definition of STS? You may use a diagram and
write an explanation below.

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
APPLY
Can you personally relate with any of these definitions?

Has your personal experiences/relations with “Science” and/or “Technology” been good
or bad, and what are these?

Please prepare your answers for the lecture-discussion on Week 2.

ADVANCE

CREATE
To wrap up this lesson, according to what you have learned, create a visual concept
map from the assigned readings that encapsulates the idea and definition of STS. After
creating your concept map, please prepare a short description and submit through
Google Classroom in A4 size paper.

You may use the following as a guide in creating your concept map :
A concept map is a visual representation of the significant or key information or
concepts in the form of graphic organizers, flowcharts, or Venn diagrams usually in
hierarchical structures connected with lines to show their relationships. Draw a
concept map of what is STS.

Concept Map:
Brief description of your concept map.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
____________________

Please submit your output through Google Classroom on ________________.

II. What are the Ways of Knowing and Doing STS?

LAUNCH

Pre-Activity:

If you have watched the animated film The Little Prince, you probably have an idea of
what the picture below is all about. Aside from what the film has taught you, imagine
what’s inside the biomorphic shape and draw it on the space provided below.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________

Carl Sagan said in his write-up “Can we know the universe” that science is a way to
understand the universe, and we need a brain as massive as the universe to
understand it. The activity gives you an idea of how science helps humans. Your
drawing represents the knowledge that humans produce. Without the curiosity in your
mind and the trial and error process that you thought of to have you visualized what’s on
your mind, you would not be able to do the activity. Science and all aspects of it help
humans to produce knowledge that we need to satisfy our needs and survive. Our
curiosity leads us to question a lot of things. Like how we ask when we are little.

REMEMBER AND UNDERSTAND

Think of one of your childhood curiosities. What was that one thing that you were so
curious about when you were a child? What are the answers that you found to your
question? How did you find the answers? Do you have the same answers to that
question at present? Why or why not?
As you grow up, you learn so many things and acquire different forms of knowledge.
Some knowledge you call facts, while others you consider as opinions. But what makes
something a fact or an opinion? What should be the basis of some knowledge for it to
qualify as truthful and correct?
You have different sources of knowledge and beliefs that helped you find answers to
your questions. Some information you get from your family, from your community, from
religion, from mass media, from school. But we mostly believe that the knowledge we
consider as truth is the one created by Science. How does Science come up with the
truth?
More importantly, is Science prone to mistake and change the truths that it previously
pronounced?
To answer all the questions raised, read The Perils of Pluto by Moshman:
<https://kupdf.net/download/perils-of-pluto_59a80cc3dc0d608362568ee1_pdf>

While going over the reading material, try to make your own analysis using the following
guide questions:
○ How do we gain knowledge about the world?
○ What are the different domains of knowledge?
○ What are the different epistemologies used to gain knowledge?
○ Which epistemology should prevail in the empirical sciences?

BUILD

EXPLAIN
When I was a kid, I used to believe that people go to heaven when they die. This
heaven that I know then was up there in the skies, floating in the fluffy clouds, with white
tall gates and cute angels awaiting at its entrance. I wanted to go to heaven, I said! I
knew these were true because my family and the television shows I watch said so.

In high school Earth Science, I discovered that the heaven that I knew is different.
Suddenly, the books say that the skies above us are made up of different layers of the
atmosphere. There are only the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere,
exosphere, and then the vast darkness of the outer space. There was no mention of
heaven with tall gates with angels welcoming you.

How did this happen? Did the heavens and skies change? Or is it only my knowledge
about it that has changed? This begs the question of “how do we know what we know
about the world?”. Do we simply come up with a variety of beliefs about knowledge or
does our knowledge about knowledge develop?

There are several ways of understanding what constitutes a fact. The positivist
approach holds that facts are self-evident, that they are simply there. Thus, physical
phenomena that manifest themselves visibly are held to be factual; their existence
cannot be doubted inasmuch as they are confirmed by the senses. On the other hand, a
constructionist approach holds that facts are socially created; facts are facts once
people agree that these things constitute a fact.

This distinction is important in understanding the beginnings of science. How did

scientists come to create or build a consensus on what was important to understand
and what was not? In part, this was due to the accumulation of knowledge through the
written word and partly due also to the use of experimentation and observation to test
hypotheses.

Ludwik Fleck (1979) pointed out that facts are created not in and of themselves but as a
result of the cognition of their existence. Such cognition is in turn a collective activity
since it is based on a body of knowledge shared with other people. This exchange or
sharing of ideas creates what he calls a thought collective. The thought collective
creates a collective mood, and as a result of both understanding and
misunderstandings, creates its own peculiar thought style. As the thought collective
becomes more and more complex and sophisticated, it divides itself into the esoteric,
the professionals, and the exoteric or the laypeople. A thought style in turn has both the
active elements, which shape the way people think about the world and the passive
elements, which the members of the thought collective hold to be objective reality. Facts
in this sense are actually social constructs, the reality of which are likely to change over
time as more and more work is put into the ideas shared by the collective. It is also the
nature of the uniqueness of the thought collectives that they are incommensurable; that
is, they may not be meaningful to each other to varying degrees. For example, what is a
fact to one collective may not be meaningful or even false to another thought collective.
Thought styles are, however, not immutable or immune to change. Thought styles may
change once the realization sets in that there are a number of phenomena that are not
accounted for in the standard way of thinking.

There are three epistemic domains of knowledge according to Moshman (2007):

matters of truth, matters of taste, and matters of interpretation. Let us discuss each one:
Matters of truth fall within an objective domain in which truth and falsity can be clearly
and sharply distinguished. The domain of truth, then, includes factual, logical, and moral
truths. For example, choosing between what the shape of the earth- weather it is flat or
round – is a matter of truth. It can be proven by factual and logical evidence. It can be
observed and proven through scientific inquiry and it is objective, and definite. This is
what objectivist epistemology subscribes to. For objectivists, what counts as
knowledge are those that are backed up by factual evidence and cannot be changed
over time.
On the other hand, matters of taste fall within a subjective domain in which truth and
falsity are irrelevant. In this domain we neither expect agreement nor try to achieve it.
An example would be your preference between chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice
cream; your preference for fiction or realist literature; or your preference between STS 1
or another GE course you are taking this semester. There is not one answer, the matter
is dependent on a person’s subjectivity and therefore can change from time to time.
This is what subjectivist epistemology is about. A person’s individual preference or
opinion counts as truthful even without solid scientific evidence to it. For objectivists,
matters of taste are not considered knowledge as there are things that need a definitive
answer.
The third is more interesting- matters of interpretation. It combines the objective and
subjective. Matters of interpretation fall within a domain of reasonable judgment in which
some ideas are better justified than others but truth cannot be proven. In this domain,
we acknowledge that different minds may reach legitimately different conclusions but
we believe evidence and argument may generate progress in understanding. This
means it recognizes knowledge as something that is build up by factual evidence but
truthful only until a more reasonable and stronger piece of evidence is available. Such is
the case when Copernicus proved that the sun is at the center of the solar system,
rather than the Earth which is widely believed in his time. With continuous curiosity and
search for answers, new knowledge is being created. Matters of interpretation are what
counts as knowledge for the rationalist/interpretivist epistemology. Rationalists strive
for truth by searching for scientific evidence that is currently available. What sets them
apart from objectivists is that they are open to new truths that are backed by more
logical or stronger evidence that was made available through a continuous search for
knowledge. This is why it takes both the objectivist and subjectivist stance.
The deplanetization of Pluto shows the rationalist/interpretivist epistemology of science.
It upheld the previous truth that Pluto was considered a planet but made amendments
to the body of knowledge concerning the classification of Pluto in view of the recent
evidence that was discovered.
This shows that Science as a source of knowledge does not assume to claim the
mature and final state of things, rather, continuously stays curious and studies to
discover new forms of knowledge.

Using the concepts discussed in the reading material, contrast the two and give one
example for each:
 FACT TRUTH

ELABORATE
A fact has to be named, accepted, and practiced by the community. Fact is measurable
and it changes. It is a fact that Pluto is no longer a planet since August 24, 2006 when
the International Astronomical Union (IAU) demoted it to dwarf planet status. The
deplanetization of Pluto happened because the IAU redefined the word “planet”, one
which Pluto clearly does not satisfy. Truth on the other hand is factual, logical, and
includes morality. It never changes and is eternal. It needs no evidence and cannot be
challenged.

To know more why Pluto isn’t a planet anymore, you may watch this
Youtube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6dbT9StGCE>

For an elaborated explanation of fact, you may read this supplemental reading material:
Bauchpies, W.K., Croissant, J., & Restivo, S. (2008). Culture of Science. Science,
Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. US: Wiley-Blackwell.

APPLY
Self- Survey
● Take the following self-survey to assess your assumptions about knowing and
knowledge in five different disciplines: physical sciences, human/social sciences,
values judgment, aesthetic judgment, and religious beliefs.
● Validate the survey results based on your own judgment. Which is/should be
your prevailing epistemology for each of the disciplines? Why?
● The Summary Diagram of “Ways of Knowing”—culled from the research base on
epistemic cognition—provides an overview of the findings and consensus points
of the research. The nature of the empirical sciences, as illustrated by their
historical development, dictates that these disciplines (physical and
human/social) ought to be evaluativist.
● While very few adults are able to reach the evaluativist stage of their epistemic
development, this evaluativist stage is considered ideal not only for the sciences,
but even for aesthetic judgments, values judgments, and religious beliefs. The
evaluativist epistemology recognizes the quality of human knowledge as
essentially social construction but does not—like the multiplist—abandon the task
of rational evaluation.

ADVANCE
REFLECT (Journal Entry #1)
What is the importance of science and technology in Contemporary Society?

Choose a specific policy and/or guideline released by the government in the handling of
the pandemic (e.g. community quarantine, use of motorcycle barriers, etc.). What do
you think is the epistemological stance of the government in creating this policy? How
do you think this epistemological stance affects the pandemic situation?

Summary of module 1:

The meaning of Science and Technology

By different schools of thought, and through different histories, they mean many
things.

The different ways of knowing (and doing ) of science and technology

That science and technology knows what it does and does what it does based on
an individual (scientist’s or engineer’s) or communities epistemology: Are they
absolutists, evaluativists, or multiplists? And that their epistemology determines
what for them might be considered fact, theory, and/or even law; and

That scientists, and engineers, in the course of developing their sciences and
technologies are swayed too by practice and community defined within the
context of the social, cultural and historical contexts they move in.

KEY TAKE AWAY

 Questions Answers
What is your key take-
away from this lesson?

What did you like best

about this lesson?
(aspect, delivery,
procedure)

What do you think could

be improved?