Dr Jose Rizal in the 13th chapter of his “El
Filibusterismo” “The Class in Physics” describes the state of science education
in late 19th Century Spanish Philippines. The Physics classroom cum
laboratory at the University of Santo Tomas, then the Philippines’ only centre
of advanced learning, was equipped with the latest teaching and research lab
equipment but according to Rizal was hardly ever used for the intended purpose.
In fact Rizal satirically writes that only the janitor and the doorman who out
of curiosity, played with the instruments, ever benefited or learned science
from the investment on those pieces of lab equipment.
A closer reading of Rizal beyond the satire shows the state
of science in a society that places a greater importance on superstition and a
perverse kind of Catholicism.
Rizal writes a damning indictment in the last paragraph of
the chapter
“He who
weighs the value of a second and has ordained for His creatures as an elemental
law progress and development, He, if He is just, will demand a strict
accounting from those who must render it, of the millions of intelligences
darkened and blinded, of human dignity trampled upon in millions of His
creatures, and of the incalculable time lost and effort wasted! And if the
teachings of the Gospel are based on truth, so also will these have to
answer—the millions and millions who do not know how to preserve the light of
their intelligences and their dignity of mind, as the master demanded an
accounting from the cowardly servant for the talent that he let be taken from
him.”
Science
according to Rizal is necessary for society’s advancement simply because it is
a search for truth. The truth shown by science is determined by experimentation
and objective (scientific) realism. And that truth should liberate Filipino
society from superstition, blind religion, ideology, discrimination and
oppression. All of these are in the progressive agenda.
However a
recent book “Science Left Behind” (Public
Affairs Books, 2012) by microbiologist Dr Alex B Berezow and Hank Campbell,
editor of Science 2.0, examines the rise of anti-Science ideologies in the progressive
movement. The authors argue that when the progressive movement abandoned
empiricism for more relativistic ideologies, science was left aside and thus we
have “scientific” controversies on animal rights, genetically modified (GM)
food, rejection of vaccines stem cell research, reproductive health,
alternative medicine among others.
But before
we tackle this abandonment of empiricism and rationalism that according to the
authors came in the wake of the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”
in 1962. Silent Spring is a milestone in the history of science, technology and
society when progressives abandoned rationalism and empiricism became radical
environmentalists working for the realization of a natural utopia, restored in
its pristine form. This is a myth, a construct similar to that what Freethinkers
claim for what Roman Catholic Church believes is the truth about human
societies. But I shall come to that later.
The
anti-science ideas held by postmodern progressives can be summarized in four
points according to Berezow and Campbell
1.
Everything
natural is good
2.
Everything
unnatural is bad
3.
Unchecked
science and progress will destroy us
4.
Science is
only relative anyway
This idea of
naturalness is rooted in postmodern relativism in which science is just one
idea among others that none of them should have none of the preeminence it should
have in discourse. This is a radical departure from the position held by Dr
Rizal who maintained the objective validity of scientific reasoning (scientific
realism) and that without it society will fail to advance.
This book is
aimed at an American readership and specifically deals with science and
politics in the United States. However it may be applicable to the debates on
science, environment and population in the Philippines. Filipino progressives
have largely borrowed progressive agendas from the West mainly from the United
States and are now in the process of articulating this to varying degrees of
success in the Filipino context. Perhaps the articulation of progressive ideas
is most successful in the issue of climate change and resource use management
that many Filipinos have now a concept of how to mitigate the impact of climate
change or the negative effects of using plastic bags. Local governments
nationwide have implemented no plastic bags ordinances. Do these policies
translated to law have scientific basis?
It is a
buzzword among the Filipino science community that public policy should be
“science based”. While this sound like a sexy mantra and may get money from the
government science agencies, the fact remains that public policy cannot be 100%
based on science alone. When science is made into public policy, it is
translated and with it the ideology or the political expediency of the moment
gets mixed in. Science tests hypotheses with rigor and lets the data speak for
itself. Politics on the other hand thrives on subjective truth. Thus there is a
need to insulate science from ideology driven politicians, ministers of
religion, Freethinkers, activists and advocates. Science should be free to
speak for itself and science policy should be driven by data above anything
else.
What has
happened in late 20th century America and has seen its full
flowering under the Obama presidency is that postmodern progressives have successively
dominated the public discourse on science with their ideologically driven
relativistic positions. This is also the case in the Philippines when
progressives have hijacked the discourse on two major issues that have major
consequences for national development, mining and population management.
I will focus
on these two issues since they are national in scope and unlike animal rights
or stem cell research or even genetically modified food which are issues for
certain demographic sectors but not the whole nation.
Comments