Zachariah, 'Uses of Scientific Argument; The Case of ‘Development’ in India, c 1930-1950'' (original) (raw)
Related papers
Towards a Negative History of Science: The Unknown, Errors, Ignorance, and the "Pseudosciences"
Histories, 2022
This article outlines elements of a negative history of science. For historians wishing to get a fuller picture of scientific practice both internally and externally, there is a lot to be gained by considering the dialectical constitution of scientific knowledge. To fully comprehend this relationality, historians should, therefore, trace the negative relations science maintains. Through oppositions, such as known/unknown; success/error; consideration/ignorance; and inclusion/exclusion, scientific knowledge emerges and disappears, and the social position of scientific practice is both established and contested. To exemplify our argument, we present four areas: the unknown, errors, ignorance, and the “pseudosciences”. Taken together, this approach allows us to understand how science constitutes itself epistemically and socially across different locations and historical periods.
Science in History, 2007
This is the preprint version of a published paper. The latter was not the usual history of science. What it tried to do may be described as follows: It deals with a number of different themes. First, it deals what the present author understood by ‘science’ when the essay was written and how far it is possible to speak of ‘science’ as regards past human cognitive efforts. Secondly it goes on to examine in some detail the features of human cognition – the characteristics of human language and the nature of non-linguistic elements in human cognition. Thirdly it tries to understand how such features emerged in the course of the evolution of hominids and particularly the Homo sapiens. The discussions are from an unabashed Darwinian evolutionary standpoint, for although the latter is far from providing all the answers, it seems to be the paradigm with the most promise. Here again, the author was guided by his own intellectual preferences and convictions. Having done with such largely theoretical themes the essay moves on to examine ‘science in Indian history’ down to c.1800. The treatment has not aspired to be comprehensive but has concentrated on items that appeared intriguing. There is in between a relatively extended treatment of the Greek-speaking world, for reasons that will be given in their proper place. A discussion of the ‘scientific revolution’ in Europe seemed indispensable, for our understanding of science and its history and indeed the very nature of our present existence is a result of the ‘scientific revolution’. There is no discussion of science in India in the colonial and post-colonial periods, for other articles in the volume in which the paper was published were devoted to these themes. But it was deemed important to comment on certain qualities of modern Indian science and to bring into discussion the roles of modern science and technology in a world looking ahead to environmental catastrophe.
Review-Essay of two books on the history of science
Contrary to what I was taught in high school in the mid-1940s, science is no longer defined as an inductive methodology for immaculately conceiving culture-free truth after sifting through a huge data base of objective facts. For without some prior hypothesis to guide her, a scientist would not be able to decide which facts were relevant. Nowadays hypotheses can come from anywhere in the imagination or culture within which the scientist is working. The importance of a scientific hypothesis is that it be framed in such a way that it can be falsified when tested. Science now has a history and is part of human cultural evolution. The major premise of both these recent books is that scientific innovation needs to be understood as intricately bound to the particular time and cultural milieu in which it occurred.
The Scientific Method and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge
International journal of innovative research and development, 2017
Science and its products have tremendous impact on our lives and how we influence our immediate environment and the world at large. The importance of science goes far beyond how the product of science and technology influence us. Science, as compared to other areas of study or institutions, enjoys an unparalleled prestige in society (Delfino, 2014). This is why nations are making every effort to provide funding for science and technology projects and research, and provide incentives and scholarships to those who have chosen to study science. No wonder people trust what the scientist says than what a farmer, journalist, politician or businessman will say, even though the scientists may be not be saying so much. People often ask whether what is being said is scientifically proven. Science is seen by many as a highly rational and non-subjective inquiry, and scientists are seen as people who are able to collect, infer from evidence, and depend on evidence to derive 'scientifically proven' conclusion. The scientifically proven conclusions are devoid of prejudice and are not the product of ideology. Somehow these characteristics are paramount in the philosophy of science. According to Makumba (2005), philosophy of science may be looked at in three ways. First, as the formulation of worldviews that are consistent with important scientific theories as "an exposition of the presuppositions and predispositions of scientists" (p. 74) and thirdly as a discipline in which concepts and theories in the field of the sciences are critically analyzed and clarified. Philosophy of science may either be epistemology or metaphysics. Whichever way we look at the philosophy of science the general aim is to describe and understand how science works within all of its branches. We may have philosophical interest in Science because of the influence of science on us, but besides this, science answers some philosophical questions and is therefore important to philosophy. One of such questions has to do with the ways by which we can gain knowledge as opposed to beliefs and opinions (Mingers, 2008) and the general answer to such a question is that the scientific method must be followed. Whatever a government may believe, be it right or wrong, about the effects of filth on beaches, it will not act till science provides evidence in support of such belief. The views of scientist are accorded respect due to the fact that conclusions drawn by scientists are reached through proper and standard methods of collecting and analyzing evidence, and hence the conclusions of scientists are justified. Even in some cases, the conclusions are tested with the intention of making them false. Since Francis Bacon proposed the 'scientific method', it has been subjected to criticism, like that of Hume and Popper. It has seen modifications and alternatives, like the falsificationism doctrine Karl Popper preached. This essay discusses the philosophy of science by looking at two major areas; the scientific method and the growth of scientific knowledge.
Review of: Science as a Reason of State
Ashis Nandy is said to be a trained Indian clinical psychologists who has widely been proven political psychologist, cum social theorist and critic. His criticism centers on European colonialism, development, modernity, secularism, Hindutva, science, technology, nuclearism, cosmopolitanism and utopia. He has also offered alternative conceptions relating to cosmopolitanism and critical traditionalism and an original historical profile of India's commercial cinema as well as critiques of state and violence, under which the this article under review falls. Review In this article, Ashis Nandy has raised several questions about science, the development, social norms and the reasons for their emergence such as what are the sources of such commitment to the development of science and the science of development. Can one identify and challenge the philosophical and ideological framework within which the commitment is located? Can one not go beyond shedding tears copiously over the misuse of modern science by wicked politicians, militarists and multinational corporations, and scrutinize the popular
Scientific thought and its burdens : an essay in the history and philosophy of science
2000
Scientific Thought and Its Burdens: An Essay in the History and Philosophy of Science investigates how the concept of science is understood. The main thesis defended is that scientific activities, like all human activities, are the product of a certain mentality. After this thesis is put forward, an answer is sought to the question: what kind of mentality is scientific thought the product of? Current theories of science have tried to answer this question either from an epistemological (e.g. David Hull and to some extent Karl Popper), sociological (Robert K. Merton) or historical (Thomas Kuhn) point of view. However, when we examine the characteristics of scientific thought in the history of civilisation, we see that all three of these aspects have shaped scientific thought. This requires the concept of science to be analysed from these three aspects and defined in this way. This work has first tried to reveal how the first aspect can be formed with the epistemology of science and how the second aspect affects science as a mentality with the sociology of science. Then, three civilizations were taken as a field research and the historical aspect was tried to be revealed: Ancient Greek, Islamic and Western civilisations. Thus, by reaching a general definition of science, the concepts of scientific consciousness, scientific tradition, scientific thought and scientific society were tried to be explained.