Modern Science is approaching the phenomena occurring in nature with scepticism. It involves innovation and creativity. The most important attribute of modern science is experiments and the hypothesis, observations and inferences that come along with it. In modern science, one tries to break down the reasoning to the smallest pieces and treats it with analytical methodology. Another differentiating aspect of modern science is the requirement of proof. Proof in terms of numbers and statistics. The discoveries and new inventions were enabled to be deemed as acceptable only when it was explained in accordance with mathematics. However, this wasn’t the case in pre-modern science era. It involved finding the truth which was along the lines of what the society believed. The truth was required to have an aesthetic value but modern science changed the questions that we asked and hence the approach to the truth too (para 53, 235). Mendal discovered the law of genetics in a time that was not ready for his methodology. His theory was not accepted by many contemporary scientists as it involved quantitative analysis but later when it was revisited by the scientific community it was as precious as gold because it could be proven practically instead of just theoretically in accordance to modern science (Text 5, para 12, 14, p 103) But to me, the most essential characteristic of modern science is the neutral approach and the associated raw reality.
Rodolfo Stavenhagen once said, "Cultural Diversity is to human species what biological diversity is to the genetic wealth of the world." According to me, co-existence with cultural diversity is not the idea of true universality of modern science. Culture is something that is man-made and also varies from region to region whereas the truth of nature is constant. Modern Science doesn’t involve a subjective aspect. However, the attitude towards modern science can be affected by one’s cultural background. For example, in Europe and Islamic countries, schools and universities integrated science under the dominion of philosophy whereas the Chinese had science but no science, there was no one single term for the overarching sum of them all (para 10, 221) and hence there was a disparity in the magnitude of the Scientific Revolutions in the West and East. Although to some extent, modern science agrees to cultural groups. Tung Chung Shu talks about the resonance of stringed instruments (text 9, Para35, p213) which is studied under the discipline of modern scientific physics. This idea of resonance is not questioned by the diverse group of Indians as in their culture, chanting ‘Aum’ helps the body resonate with the sound of the universe and is this word is sacred in the Indian religion and a practice in meditation for improving health. I also believe that to some extent, cultural diversity is a part of modern science. The Scientific revolution occurred in the west and due to colonization, many ideas from various cultures of the commonwealth nations were picked up by Europeans and incorporated into the science. To quote from the source, Needhamian ecumenism or the idea that modern science visualised in historical time was a “product of many civilizations and common property of mankind”, struck a resonant chord among third world intellectuals o a progressivist persuasion. However, the presentism evident in his ecumenical metaphors has rendered Needham vulnerable to the charge of temporal solipsism, that he sometimes suspends historical context. I agree to Needham’s point of view about many civilizations contributing to modern science, however I don’t understand why which civilization contributed what and how much should be given importance when we discuss modern science. In the end, modern science is about studying as well as understanding how nature works by employing practical application of knowledge. In my opinion, this idea stems from the Eurocentric Scientific Revolution and the growing westernization. Their supremacy is uncalled for but unfortunately present even to this date which makes the East demand for the recognition that it deserves. One of the features of history of science is driven by the competition “to claim priority of discovery for every scientific theory or any significant invention” which has led to a more Eurocentric modern science. Non-westerners have come up with an alternative of ‘indigenous science’ which is more traditional and not as “arrogant” as modern science. But culture is a man-made concept while science is something that is out of our control and the two cannot be separated as kind or unkind. It can only be looked at as the truth which cannot be changed according to circumstances by humans.
I believe that this statement incorporates the essence of modern science even though it seems quite ideal. After all humans do have their biases which can stem from their experiences, personal and religious beliefs as well as their own likes and dislikes. For example, Aristotle was a pioneer but was against the concept of controlled experiments (Text 22, para 19, p24). This decision was made by him on the basis of his own faith. Nevertheless, modern science is about the verity of nature. The laws, the working and the reasons for the scientific happenings are evolved on the basis of continuous experimentation under all possibilities to understand the occurrences in nature completely in a candid manner. Modern Science also consists of two types of Science- Applied Science and Pure Science. Pure Science relates to finding the forces behind the existing scientific knowledge while applied science is about application of the knowledge and innovation which sets modern science apart. If any bias crept into these practices, there would be a bent science that we’d be studying in today’s world. When the fact was ‘public’ and ‘verifiable’, a sense of independence came along with the modern Science. In pre-modern science times, the population blindly believed in whatever the authoritative body (The church, the government or even the father of the family) at that time claimed. Then again, there would be no scope of growth or evolution if this continued. The advancement and the prosperity of the humankind is being witnessed because they stopped letting external factors affect them/started to ignore the preconceptions.
I think that the two statements are incompatible. Statement (b) suggests how modern science is immune to interference by God whereas statement (a) suggests that modern science would be truly universal when it works parallel with cultural diversity. I feel that these two ideas are contradictory to each other as only either one of the them can happen. If modern science serves the ethnic groups then the aspect of subjectivity is added which is something that is exact opposite to the definition of modern science. There is a fine line between objectivity and subjectivity and the truth is found on that line. A culture is basically a group of people coming together who share the same ideas and traditions. Different regions have different cultures which on some subject or the other may have conflicting views and hence having a science that appeals to all the various culture of the world would be trying to bend the truth of nature. To some extent, I feel that is not even possible. It is accurate to say that one can’t please everyone. The most opposing words amongst these two sentences are- culture and God. We know that a culture is led in a particular direction because of what people might think that ‘God’ would deem right while the statement (b) clearly states how the fact would not consider the ‘God’ factor in modern science. Objectivity can have four conceptions, being detached or impersonal, being public, something that is separated from us or the reality. Bringing cultural diversity in this equation would be clashing. Moreover, many cultures which are strongly religious discard the possibility of many scientific happenings. These specific cultures believe that natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis and other environmental events like rain, summer warmth and snow are God’s doing. They also believe that this is God’s way of communication to express his sorrow or happiness. Yet, over the years, we have found and established the actual scientific and proven reasons for the same happenings. Modern Science doesn’t necessarily reject the idea of God or a holy presence, it simply just doesn’t take that into deliberation.
In conclusion, I feel that the rejection of modern scientific universality is more related to it not being very exclusive. “That means modern science can be really culturally diversified only when it allows itself to be more inclusive.” However, I feel that including something that is not the truth irrespective of culture and region doesn’t solve the purpose of knowing the objective truth.
Works Citied
– Homage to an Honorary Taoist, Dhruv Raina, Economical and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No.30, July 29, 1995
– The Scope and Limits of Scientific Objectivity, Joseph F. Hanna, Philosophy of Science
– Vol. 71, No. 3, July 2004
– Science and cultural diversity, S. IRFAN HAB1B
– Scientific Knowledge and Cultural Diversity
Needham, Joseph, The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China:An Abridgement of Joseph
Needham’s Original Text, Vol. 1 (1978), In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook for General
Education Foundation Programme, Edited by, Chan Chi Wang, Szeto Was Man and Wong
Wing Hung, revised second edition, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2016, pp.
207-211