Thursday, January 25, 2007

Hello everyone. This is Faisal. I was invited to take part in this forum by my friends Luke and KZ. Taliba, I have yet to make your acquaintance but I am sure you are a nice person. Let me now proceed with some cursory remarks.

This blog considers science to be a hegemonic practice/discourse in contemporary society. Therefore its primary purpose is to open up avenues for critical discussion. I can see the links to other philosophy and social science websites. This indicates a common starting point for inquiry: what is science and how are we affected by it? No one will deny that there have been many technological and industrial gains since the enlightenment and scientific revolution. And surely most people have no problem reaping the benefits of bio-medical research. I certainly still treasure my grape flavored cough syrup!

Does such a historical trajectory, however, reflect "progress"? Is science only to be measured by its instrumental results? Are not value judgements inherent in such common place sayings as "look, that surgery saved my daugher's life and I am glad"? The "practical" man/woman may reply that these are arcane topics only disputed by ivory tower academics who have fallen victim to the "post-modern" fad. The practical man/woman also probably visits the local bookstore. There he/shefinds books such as the Bell-Curve, numerous guides to classical economicsand the follies of socialist economic planning, not to mention what the latestresearch may provide for his/her marriage.

Problem Solved? I think not. And the solution is far from in sight. Several points must be ascertained: what does history say about the development of the hard sciences/social sciences? how in various periods have philosophical developments affected research into biology, psychology, phyics, etc.? what does one even mean by social science? are there such things as iron clad economic laws, rules for social intercourse, static mating rituals, etc.? Or to stick to the topic at hand: the Bell Curve has racist overtones, some of the biggest critics of "actually existing (or existed) socialism" have been other socialists looking for a different type of socialism, and many women wonder why they are pushed into a failing marriage in the first place.

Naturally these issues are immense and one would need to be an Isaiah Berlin or a Will Durant in order to adequately address all these issues in a systematic historical fashion. Yet as has been mentioned, this website is to open up inquiry. Many of us will probably only discuss things that we are only beginning to feel comfortable with. And who knows, even if this blog doesn't even work out or is doomed to neglect, a single comment, quote, or one sentence aphorism can have a stimualting effect and quite frankly, make someone's day.

1 Comments:

Blogger Abu Turab said...

Perhaps we should begin with a definition of "science", "progress", "good."

In all fairness, we should start how "science" defines itself; if that is even possible. What do "scientists" say "science" is or is not? What arguments are advanced that science is good? Is the justification for science as an authoritative source of human knowledge scientific or rational or some other form of knowledge?

I think Imam Juwayni said it best when he said that the greatest flaw of empirical reasoning is that it cannot defend itself using empirical reasoning.

4:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home