Science, Technology and Society: Cognitive Dimensions I

Science, Technology and Society: Cognitive Dimensions I


A very warm welcome to this CSS MOOC course
on science technology and society it is a course within the discipline of sociology
as a whole and in particular sociology of science and technology but when we look at
courses like science technology and society. We must look at the way these 3 forces are
prediction naming the science technology and society have evolved over time and across
space, science technology and society this sub discipline or is consummation of various
other disciplines namely philosophy of science history of science sociology of science and
partially philology of science when we talk about philosophy of science history of science
sociology of science and of course philology of science is a reason discipline which I
am not going to cover much in fact I will be dealing with science technology and society
from 3 vantage points. Namely physiology of science, history of science
and sociology of science okay before entering any formal discussion on STS I repeat I retardate
the point that we must look at the thematic preliminaries. Which are very much implicit in the relationship
between science technology and society? Now what is technology, what is science what
is society? Technology the way we understand always predate
modern science people very often think that you know science is prairie to the formation
of technology but history of science philology of science, sociology of science all range
reiterate the point that technology always predates model science we can give numerous
examples but for the time being what we want to look at that how technology what are the
contours of technology. How a technology as evolved what are the theoretical
predicaments of technology similarly we also look at science and it is intellectual and
political contours and also the relationship of technology and science with society okay
then what is a technology. Technology if we look at from the vantage
point of historical sociology political economy philosophical and topology then we always
finds that technology is the medium through which human beings interact with nature. When I say nature it includes both natural
and social phenomena the way I want to look at technology this is the perceptive that
I am is done from historical sociology, politically economy philosophical topology, then what
is you perceptive a perceptive. Refers to a set of symbols which human beings
used to select from all poetically observable of aspects of nature when I again when say
nature it includes both natural and social phenomena when I say technology is the medium
through which human beings including us as subjects interact with nature that there also
we find some kind of relationship between human beings and nature the earlier literature
suggests that a nature always controls human action but we that rise of enlighten critical
thinking modernity rejoining capacity and industrial revolution we always witness that
no nature does not control human action rather human action controls nature. There we see a shift in the faculty of contain
place and to a faculty of control human beings not only change nature. But also change the social relationships implicit
it to us marks argued that by acting up in nature human beings not only change nature
but also nature but also change themselves as social electors then let us come to what
constitute science okay, science. Can be dealing it through various modes science
may be an in query science may be a method science may be an institution science may
be an ideology science may be a transition from the world of a no ability to the world
of no ability when I say science is an in query. (Refer Slide Time: 06:32)
Into the nature and limits of a particular knowledge that is scientific knowledge when
I say science is an in query into the nature of a particular knowledge by nature of a particular
knowledge I mean the subject matter of knowledge, the scope and beat of that particular knowledge
but when I say limits of a particular knowledge I do not mean limitations, but limits I mean
under what limiting conditions science is practiced or persuade even a set theory has
limits in mathematics in said what is the set theory is a branch of mathematical logic. If you look at even a said theory if I say
we mean I can say there may be many sub sets I can say American women I can say African
women I can say Ancient women even a sub set called women can also defeat many other sub
sets, then when I mean Indian women Chinese Women Japanese women Pakistan women and so. When I say women here I cause some limiting
conditions not limitations in this context science is an in query into the nature and
limits of a particular knowledge that is scientific knowledge. Science is also a method where we have in
what we encounter is that the objective of science and the objective of non science is
the objective of science is to arrive at the truth the objective of say religion is also
to arrive at the truth but they are different, the objective does not make a distinction
between science and religion rather it is the method which distinguishes science from
religion science does not mix speculation the way religion touch science believes in
the empirical and do rest to methods of inquiry. When I say empirical I mean it is based on
experience when I say reasonless method I mean it is based on this will discuss these
two methods of inquiry two methods of science in the lectures to follow when will be discussing
methods of science okay, I mean it is the method that makes a distinguish between science
and religion science does not believe in any kind of speculative philosophy rather science
always starts with verifiable facts if I say I have seen a ghost it does not imply that
a religious person may accept this. But a person of science will never accept
this precisely because it is the method that a nest distinguish between science and religion
science always believes in observable and verifiable facts. After discussing science as an inquiry as
well as science as method let us come to a point where we can say science as an institution,
after discussing science as an inquiry as well as science as method let us come to a
point where we can say science as an institution, science as a social institution. Science as a political institution okay, the
way we witness science as a social institution, science as a political institution we also
discuss this particular component of science as a social institution when we discuss Mertonian
ethos of science Robert Mert okay, I mean what kind of norms science follows or truthful
that is a prescriptive matter, there is a normative matter to science as an institution,
science as a social institution as Merton enhanced that have to follow the principles
of universal religion, comminution, dis-interestness and organized is kept decision. When he says science as a social institution,
science as a political institution also we can say but when we look at science as a political
institution also we can look at the way magazines which propagated by Hitler during the Second
World War okay, we will come to this point later on when we talk about science and technology
having political properties. The way science can be a part of the state
technology can be a part of the state both science and technology can be the absolute
of the state by predicts of the state, then we can, we will discuss this things. Science also is an ideology we will back to
magicians which I refer to science also becomes a part of ideology, science is treated as
an ideology. How you propagate your ideology is through
propagating through science that is what Hitler did during his regime, during his horrendous
regimes during the second world war in Germany, okay. Science also it is a transition from the world
of know ability to the world of know ability science teaches us how to move a transition
from darkness to light, science also teaches us how to move from the world of unknowns
to the world of knowns, science also teaches us how to create, how to go shine, how to
interrogate the existing structures and sub-structures which other forms of inquiry may not be able
to do. Science only teaches us how to create a space
to accommodate different perspectives, different opinions there is no linear thing about science
this linearity has to contain even if it has such linearity within science has been questioned
by philosopher of science, historians of science and sociologist of science. Let us see how till now what we have discussed
we will see okay, what we have discussed till now. We have discussed how what is your technology,
what is science and then we will see how they are inter-related okay, when we see the relationship
of technology and science technology is very often known as the act of doing and science
is known as the act of knowing, then this act of knowing and act of doing they must
go hand in hand we cannot isolate the act of doing they must go hand in hand we cannot
isolate the act of doing or act of knowing to or we cannot treat them in isolation there
mutually influenced there co related okay. Many people’s very often say that science
is basic where as technology is applied we must be able to question this, these inferences
our inference is that technology predates modern science technology also can predates
modern science in the sense let me give you an example this fast the steam engine was
invented and then we en-counted the loge of thermodynamics. I mean technology also change is the direction
of basic research that is why an imminent theoretical physicist Abdus Salam from Pakistan
one said today’s basic science will be tomorrow’s applied science and wise reverse even applied
science also changes the direction of the principles of basic science’s okay. In this context what we are trying to do? These themes that science technology and society
as emanating from the congou medicine of three disciplines of philosophy of science or history
of science and sociology of science that one may have questions about philosophy of science
history of science sociology of science. What is philosophy of science? The question philosophy of science is as old
as science itself the question the method of science, what is the method of science
is as old as science itself in fact such questions where post by arrested long back. The way philosophy of science that we try
to construe philosophy of science is an enquiry in to the nature and limits of a particular
knowledge that is scientific historical history of science is an enquiry in to the nature
and limits of a particular knowledge guided by history guided by the methods of history. It may be archival research it may be historical
research it may be library research and so on. And it may also be empirical histories which
are guided by our experiences when we talk about sociology of science it is an enquiry
in to the nature and limits of a particular knowledge guide be social and political institutions. There are very various examples of social
institutions political institutions and so on if I say political institution it may refer
to the state, when in say social institution may be in the form of family may be in the
form of marriage may be in the form of kin seep and so on okay. Social institutions the way we see the formation
of IIT is the way we have seen the formation of CSIR labs the way we are seen the formation
of universities they are also part of social institutions they are educational institutions
they also form certain norms values and so on, there is a difference between norm and
rule okay in social vague what we say rule if I say please keep to the left walk on the
left hand side of the road I mean that is the rule which is legally bound. When I say norm, norms evolve of an social
acceptance there they may not be legally bound at times okay but rules are always legally
bound in this sense we are talking about social institutions political institutions they have
the norms values institutional frame works institutional mandates for example the institutional
mandate of this state may be to provide welfare majors for the development
of a society for it citizens. But if you look at the value system the values
that the state has it may go inside with the values that state edge it may go inside with
the edges distinguished it may not go inside at times in this sensefruidge okay now what
till now what we have discussed very quickly I will tell you that we have just discussed
technology, science and the relationship between technology and science. We have not discussed the relationship of
technology and science with society will discuss it later on okay. Now as we have already discussed what is the
perspectives that the perspectives on science technology and society that the relationship
now we are trying to built okay prima facie what is a perspective? A perspective refers to set of symbols which
human beings used to select from all potentially observable aspects of nature when I say nature
I repeat it includes both natural and social phenomena. Whenever I speak about perspective there are
three things which must be kept in mind one selection two organizational perspectives,
and the way the thirdly the way this two components selects and organize in the perceptions they
guide our actions that is why perspective is a view point that helps us in selecting
organizing our perceptions and guiding our actions. There is a difference between the perception
and the perspective a perception is the immediate contact that individuals have which nature
immediate contact again when I say nature it includes both natural and social phenomena
those that immediate contact must be tested right or wrong those that immediate contacts. That we have it may be tested wrong that is
why I gave you the example of that have seen a ghost okay that is the immediate contact
that we have with our immediate surrounding our immediate environment but that may be
tested wrong that is why it is there is a need to have a perspective that is why there
is, there is an need to organize our perceptions to arrive at a perspective. And there is to denote the any single perspective
there must be multiple perspectives a single perspective will be undemocratic, a single
perspective is ineligible to the formation of democratic society where as multiple perspective
will lead us how to have a more human society more democratic society okay. There are three models, there are three perspectives
in general it does not implies that there not be other perspectives that may be multiple
perspectives but overall in the scheme of STS science technology and society what we
are trying to do we are trying to formulate their perspectives or three models one the
linear model, two the interactionist model, three the embedded model. Let us see what these three models of the
relationship between science technology and society indicate let us go ay one by one the
linear model suggests that science leads to the development of technology and technology
leads to the development of society they followed an erroneous formula that know it always start
with basic science, basic science leads to the application of those taht5 those basic
sciences and which will have enormous impact on society on social funds okay if you look
at the interactions model it suggests Science leads to the development of technology,
it also leads to the development of society internal society also leads to the development
of technology and science then what is the similarity between the linear model and the
interactionlist the difference one can easily observe that in the linear or hierarchical
model it is also known as hierarchical model of the relationship between science technology
and society this linear model suggests that there is a one way relationship between science
technology. And society there is one way interaction between
science technology and society where as the interactionist model suggests no there is
two variations in between science technology and society a particular that’s why we always
say that no science and technology may not be considered universal then perhaps all country
you will have similar kind of science and technology policies the kind of science policies
that gives us Indian may not have that kind of policies the kind of science policies the
earth while soviet union had India may not afford to have that kind of science. And technologies it is a different question
that can India have an independent science and technology policy that will discuss towards
the end of this course okay but what is the similarity there the first one suggests the
linear model suggests that there is one vary less ion the second one the interactionist
model suggests no there is a two vary lessons no then what is the similarity the similarity
between the linear model and the interactionist model of the relationship between science
technology and society is that both these model treat science technology and society
as separate end to teach whereas the embedded model. Suggests that know they are not separate entities
rather the relationship between the science and technology is symbiotic the two forces
of production namely science and technology they are very much a part of society okay
if you look at the past two models linear and interactionist model. They exhibit the internalist account of science
which is informed by objectivity, neutrality, a temporality, universality, invariance and
so on but for this reason call mainline one of the founders of society of science and
technology wrote in ideology in neutron that all knowledge except scientific knowledge
is socially uncultured cannot be shift I must emphasize the way he must Maine suggested
that All knowledge except scientific knowledge is socially and culturally cannot be shift
and then science becomes. Superior science is objective science does
not take upon any kind of subject factors science is neutral science is at importable
and in science does not vary across time and space science is universally conditioned science
does not vary science is not variant okay as I can such internalist account of science
guided by linear interanalist model the embedded model suggests that no this interanalist model
does not hold. Two the embedded model suggest that science
and technology are very much a part of society social permission. Such externalist account of science the way
embedded model has given us the externalist account of science David Bloor said in knowledge
in source imagery in 1976 that he opposed the statement of that all knowledge except
scientific knowledge is socially and culturally conditioned rather Bloor said no knowledge
including scientific knowledge is socially caused. Again Kuhn said in structure of scientific
revolution of 1962 it is one of the best references in the world of HST studies, that science
should be seen in terms of it is historical integrity. Even before this once Mark said what is science? Science I social creation, science is not
an abstract creation of some excellent, I mean it is always a byproduct of human action
okay. Human action edited by social norms, social
values, social institutions. Now what we have discussed till now? We have discussed, we started with what is
technology? Then what is science? The relationship between technology and science,
then we have discussed relationship technology and science with society and then we have
discussed three modules, 3 perspectives which we have taken to discuss this relationship
between technology and science society, namely the linear module, the module and the embedded
module. Now we can also have other modules of in query. I will say that this kind of debate which
has given rise to this, whether we must go ahead with internals accounts of science or
external accounts of science can be seen in many works. You can look at generals like social studies
of science, science technology and even values which has always given us the impetus that
this debate is still on. With specific reference to India, one also
can look at many things. One can look at with specific reference to
India, when I say; you can look at objectivity, subjectivity debate with specific reference
to India. I mean in the philosophy of science by Dell
okay. We can give examples of the construction of
the technologies, social construction of the technology okay. This internal region external region debate
is still on what we want to do now? Is that how to mediate these two, can we just
say that no we will go ahead with internal debate, internalistic account of science,
can we just say we should go ahead only with the externalist account of science? No.

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

1 thought on “Science, Technology and Society: Cognitive Dimensions I

  1. Sir is subject ke notes hindi m kese or kha se milege…. Kya is subject ki koi book hindi language m h… Sir please mujhe bataiye mane ye subject ma 1 m liya hua

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *