Conventional Science May Lead to Social Exclusion

Science and technology have created the dominant paradigm to explain almost entire of natural phenomenon. Although there have been great technological achievements as a result of scientific conceptualisation, the reality contradicts the supremacy of a single approach of thinking. In fact, any definite style of thinking by a specific group of people which is called ‘thought collectives’[1] is narrowing the overall capacity of human being, because as Anni Dugdale has mentioned ‘science, technology and society are co-constitutive each other’[2]. It means science did not substantively appear but is socially constructed and affected by ‘socio-technical systems which include various human and non-human factors’[3]. Although science and technology shape society, science itself is subject to change and a dominant scientific paradigm may have discarded as the time passes. For instance, the Ptolemaic picture of the world asserted that the earth was centring the universe and every other planet including the sun revolve around it. This idea was accepted as a fact for hundreds of years, but following the Copernicus theory which proved earth rotates around the sun, the Earth Centring paradigm was abandoned and was not considered as a scientific fact anymore. The trend of leaving the dominant paradigm has always been difficult because the previous scholars resist any sort of ingenuity which leads to leaping off from already created system of thinking, ‘just as a priest and religious leaders are into the particular thought collectives of their faith by theological college’[4] and that is why it may lead to social exclusion.

There have been several instances which prove science is not necessarily restricted to the existing scientific boundaries. The TED talk video of ‘How We'll Find Life on Other Planets’[5] , demonstrates perfectly that there has always been more than one way to seek scientific truth. Aomawa Shields explains how she examined climate models to focuses on searching life in other planets rather than following the conventional idea which mainly relays on the distance of that planet from its star. She provides a glimpse of social exclusion mentioning the intersectionality of race and gender as a black female American astronomer who uses makeup, looking fashion magazines and having a great passion with contradictions. Nevertheless, she seeks outside of the conventional fields of science which has been mainly leading by men. Risking to tackle social exclusion may lead to the further invention as the reality sometimes contradict the initial perceptions.

---

[1] Anni Dugdale. “Science, technology and Society” in Sociologic: Analysing Everyday Life and Culture, ed, James Arvanitakis. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2016. 363.

[2] Anni Dugdale. “Science, technology and Society”. 379.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, 370.

[5] Aomawa Shields. How we'll find life on other planets. TED Talks. 2015.

The Approaches of Power

Power affects people in a variety of ways. The important point about power is that it happens within a context, which means power is changing under the specific circumstances of relations and state of confrontation. There are different theories with regards to explaining how power acts in society. Covert Power is a theory which asserts that power taking place ‘by exclusion issues from discussion in decision making’[1]. This theory is more likely to reflect non-physical pressures while another theory of ‘Overt Power’ describes ‘power that allows someone to directly enforce their preferences on another’[2]. 

In the TED Talk’s video of ‘how I stopped the Taliban from shutting down my school’[3] which was delivered by Sakena Yacoobi, she explains in an anecdotal narration that how she imposed her covert power on those hardliners Taliban to let her continue with educating Afghan women in northern Kabul. On her way to training fields she was stopped by armed men and told ‘We know where you are going […] you train women, you teach them and also you give them an opportunity to have a job. You build their skills. How about us?’[4].  Here Sakena defeats the overt power of the Taliban by imposing her covert power on them, as she has manipulated the Taliban by providing them an opportunity. Sakena trains the Taliban by which they finally become her guide to those villages and even bodyguards.  In the very first days of establishing a primary literacy course in the refugee camp, Sakena examines another sort of power which was more seductive for the Mullah. Obviously, people who are living in a war-torn country are in the extreme situation lacking shelter, food, and safety.  People are always keen to get a job, but while living in a refugee camp, it is more implausible to face a woman providing a job to a Mullah. Through offering the job, Sakena changes the nature of an observable conflict by which she can exercise her power on the Mullah. Later when the Taliban attack on her school, she denies of running any school, instead she insists ‘all learning Koran, […] so they can be a good wife, and they can obey their husband’[5]. ‘In fact, she is ‘influencing, shaping or determining’[6] the Taliban’s very first wants. Here the power happens with a completely different measurement which is neither covert nor overt; this is called Luke’s Third Dimension power.  Although power exists in all relationships, the circumstances are not always the same, that is why power can be reflected through various theories.   

---

[1] Lucas Walsh, “Power in Contemporary Society” in Sociologic: Analysing Everyday Life and Culture, ed James Arvanitakis. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2016. 144.

[2] Walsh, “Power in Contemporary Society” 140.

[3] Sakena Yacoobi. How I stopped the Taliban from shutting down my school. TED Talks. 2015.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Lucas Walsh, “Power in Contemporary Society”, 145.

Science and Religion

Is science just another form of religion? Are science and religions simply both similar social constructions?

Religions and since are major social constructions with fundamental effects on society. This essay focusses on comparable and distinctive attributes of religions and science. It highlights the ways in which irrational social factors in relation to these two social constructions influence everything. This essay discusses different aspects of religions and science including nature, authority, and implications. Although religions and science both are seeking truthful understanding, they are different in a variety of ways, science is neither a form of religion nor has the same implications.

As fundamental concepts of studying society, social constructions are those phenomena that constructed by the member of particular culture or society,[1] therefore, both religions and science are social constructions. In order to differentiate the nature of these two major social constructions, a brief description of intrinsic states of religions and science is required. However, epistemological explanations of religions and science are outside the preview of this essay, some essential explanation would be inevitable. According to Richards a straightforward definition of science ‘is the systematic description of phenomena’ [2]. A systematic approach to description may include various ways of observations and experimental activities. Despite having various methods of observations, scientific description almost ends with the same outcome. It means that a scientific description should be repeatable in everywhere and at any time. This is the main characteristic of science that allows its legacy not to be limited throughout time and place. Therefore, science has been considered as a unique and universal social construction. On the other hand, religions describe phenomena rather in some spiritual contexts. According to Durkheim religion ‘is a unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things’[3]. A unified system of beliefs and practices may vary and multiply itself along with the time and places because its obeisance to sacred does not follow the fundamental restrictions of empiricism. Consequently, unlike science, religions differ based on particular cultures and societies. In other words, religions are social constructions bounded on places and time. Therefore, by its very meaning, it is almost inconceivable for a religion to be universal. Despite being relatively inconsistent, religions and science, both have sufficient power by which societies are being impacted.

Although, the power of religions and science are legitimated through the influence of these social constructions of identities and agencies, their authorities are acting in different ways. This is because of the dissimilar means and approaches that science and religions develop and apply within society. Religions authority perform its power through ritual ceremonies, practicing worships and religious observance, while the power of science is mostly achieved through the illumination of those scientific manuscripts led to explore hidden facts during the ear of enlightenment, advanced inventions led to industrialization and improving the living standards. Furthermore, as Strassberg states ‘the power of religious sanction … to a large extent stems from the untestability of the sacred authority’[4], the authority of religions originates from divine revelation and based on faith in an omnipotent and omniscient being, which neither can be proved or disproved. Nevertheless, scientific authority is frequently questioned through the cumulative process of peer reviewing. Hence, the world’s most prominent scientist such as Stephen Hawking, may not principally undertake a major decision on behalf of his profession, unlike a local ‘leading Islamist cleric, Sayyid Mohsen Hujjat who has released a death fatwa based on his very own non-sceptical religious authority’[5]. The authority of religions and science has led to divergent implications throughout history.

Religions and science affect society in a very complex way because each of these social constructions frequently interacts with politics and social interests. The immense results of these interactions emerge as irrational social factors which could have an influence on everything. It means that, along with affecting on any other social constructions, religions, and science in many ways contradicting each other as well. In some arguments, a further gap between faith and prove has been asserted, which led to a complete denial of any sort of coherence between science and religion ‘[t]he purpose of the Templeton Foundation is…to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy’[6]. While some argue ‘[s]ometimes science must give way to religion’[7] others complain that ‘[t]he debate over religion in the United States is intense and profoundly affects the status of science’[8]. Although such a confrontation has been going on sometimes in some part of the world, it has not been the case for all the time. There is some particular period of history in which science was admitted by religion and vice versa ‘for the Christians of the seventeenth century, dogma had nothing disturbing for the reason; faith reconciled itself easily with science and philosophy, and the thinkers, such as Pascal’[9]. However, the debate between religion and science has been going on throughout the entire of the modern history, yet it is worth to mention that despite being two different social contractions, religions, and science, both have constructive and destructive implications.

There has been a long history of atrocity in the name of religion, likewise, contemporary society has been suffered a lot due to the incorrect utilization of scientific achievements. Although religion has provided many people with solidarity, confidence, humanity and morality, but for many others, it has been a source of torment, segregation, and discriminations. Various religions preach different sort of belief and ways of worship, which may lead to fundamental divisions among societies and people. According to Burke religious ideology has sufficient prospective for committing crime ‘it is clear that religious teachings hold the potential for atrocity when religious traditions specify distinctions between believers and unbelievers’[10]. On the other hand, although, science has a great contribution to improving living standard, and increasing the cultural capital of almost every human being, it has also lead to some accomplishment which is not worthwhile at all. For instance, science has caused the invention of weapons of mass destruction. In many cases, the conventional medical experiments have lead to severe adverse reactions. Science has also paved the ways of unbridled dominance on natural resources and above all scientific traditions have affected immensely on the precious balance of the global environment. Nevertheless, with its very fundamental effects, science and religions are going to shape social facts which bind together and create modern societies. However, the level of involvement of science is substantial in modern societies, but it seems quite difficult to claim that science is another form of religion. In conclusion, the long-term confrontation of religions and science proves that these two social constructions are fundamentally different, and, neither science is a religion nor religion has some things to do with science.

Bibliography

Arvanitakis, James. Sociologic: Analysing Everyday Life and Culture. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press (2016) 14. 

Burke, Deirdre. "Religion and Atrocity: The Influence of Religion on Perpetrators, Bystanders and Victims during the Holocaust." Journal of Beliefs & Values 28, no. 2 (2007): 151-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13617670701485755.

Daniel Sarewitz. "Sometimes Science Must Give Way to Religion." Nature 488, no. 7412 (2012): 431. http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244

Durkheim, Emile. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York, United States of America: The Free Press (1965) 62.

Richards, William T. "A Definition of Science." Journal of Chemical Education 5, no. 7 (1928): 874. http://pubs.acs.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1021/ed005p874 

Ruse, Michael. "A Natural History of Religion." Nature 439, no. 7076 (Feb 02, 2006): 535. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/439535a. http://search.proquest.com/docview/204546239?accountid=36155.

Strassberg, Barbara Ann. "Religion and Science: The Embodiment of the Conversation: A Postmodern Sociological Perspective." Zygon 36, no. 3 (2001): 521-39.

Waldrop, M. Mitchell. "Faith in Science: The Templeton Foundation Claims to Be a Friend of Science. so Why Does It Make so Many Researchers Uneasy?(NEWS: FEATURE)(John Templeton Foundation)." Nature 470, no. 7334 (2011): 323.

Waldrop, M. Mitchell. "Faith in Science: The Templeton Foundation Claims to Be a Friend of Science. so Why Does It Make so Many Researchers Uneasy?(NEWS: FEATURE)(John Templeton Foundation)." Nature 470, no. 7334 (2011): 323.

“Pen International” AFGHANISTAN: Mounting concern for the safety of writers. Accessed March 21, 2016. http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/afganistan-mounting-concern-for-the-safety-of-writers/

---

[1] Arvanitakis, Sociologic: Analysing everyday life and culture, 14.

[2] Richards, “A Definition of Science”, 874.

[3] Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 62.

[4] Strassberg, “Religion and Science: The Embodiment of the Conversation: A Postmodern Sociological Perspective”.

[5] Pen International, “AFGHANISTAN: Mounting concern for the safety of writers”.

[6] Waldrop, “Faith and Science,” 323.

[7] Sarewitz, “Sometimes Science Must Give Way to Religion”.    

[8] Ruse, “A natural history of religion,” 535.

[9] Durkheim, “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,” 39.

[10] Burke, ^{“Religion and Atrocity: The Influence of Religion on Perpetrators, Bystanders and Victims during the Holocaust”.}

The "Flipside" of Technology

Although a significant proportion of the ecosystem has been affected due to the impact of human activity on breaking the precious balance of global environments, there are many ways by which people can prevent further crises. Following the industrial revolution, the industrial society used fossil fuels to generate power for the mass production of goods. This process not just polluted the air by CO₂ which trapped the heat on the surface of the earth, but also contaminated the water by poisons and damaged the land through spreading un-degradable substances. Global warming is the big reality of our time which can make life harder. Nevertheless, when it comes to society and environment as it is mentioned by Niko Antalffy, ‘everything seems to have a flipside’[1] and that makes us not to be completely pessimistic. On the one hand, mass production has caused severe destruction of biodiversity and damaged environment, on the other hand, further inventions lead to producing of those new tools by which the particular instance of global environmental crisis can be highlighted very eloquently and bring the issue to public attention. The industry of taking pictures is one example which has helped to protect the environment through conservation photography.

In his talk in the video ‘Dive into an Ocean Photographer's World’ on TED Talks, Thomas Peschak shares his 40 years’ experiences that how the power of conservation photography has saved environmental sustainability and brought many species back to existence. He highlights significant jobs and positive actions that human can do with regards to boosting biodiversity through saving marine life and preventing of an irreversible disaster which is the extinction of those vulnerable creatures.  He mentions the danger of losing fishes in Cabo Pulmo in Peninsula and reveals the good news of extensive achievements following the action of waters and marine reserve in 1995. Thomas Peschak says ‘what happened next was nothing short of miraculous. In 2005, after only a single decade of protection, scientists measured the largest recovery of fish ever recorded’[2].  The reality of ecological changes and the global environmental crises are the consequences of industrialisation, but the industries by itself can be utilised to serve positively in bringing change to save the environment.

---

[1] Niko Antalffy, “Society and the Environment” in Sociologic: Analysing Everyday Life and Culture, ed James Arvanitakis. Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2016. 347.

[2] Thomas Peschak. Dive into an ocean photographer's world. TED Talks. 2015.