Is science autonomous?
Download as DOC, PDF0 likes180 views
The article discusses the need for a fundamental shift in the relationship between science and society, as articulated by Sergei Kara-Murza, who emphasizes the integration of history and philosophy of science in academic curricula. He argues that a break from modernity's principles is necessary to address the current crises in various social relations and advocates for a harmonious unity between science and ethics. Ultimately, the author aims to encourage discussions about establishing a new autonomy for science that reconnects it with ethical values and cultural contexts.
![IS SCIENCE AUTONOMOUS?
15th
July 2015. By María Teresa Pelacho López
“The present crisis [of social values] affects every cultural strata, but does this
crisis call for a radical break from the continuity [the principles of modernity]
which has been maintained until now?” With these words Serguei Kara-
Murza, professor of history of science and technology, PhD in chemical
science and member of the Science Academy of Moscow, began his first class
of a course about the philosophy of science at the University of Zaragoza, in
the academic year 1994-1995. In this year, this Russian researcher was in the
capital of Aragón (Spain) for a stay, although a few years before he had also
been invited to different universities in Spain. Some of the articles he
published at that time, were in collaboration with the late mathematician and
science historian Mariano Hormigón, who is appropriately remembered in
this article, because of the great work he and other colleagues did to develop
the research into the history of science in Spain. On this subject, according to
Serguei Kara-Murza’s thinking, and as a consequence of the main idea of the
present article, the importance of the inclusion of the history and philosophy
of science in university degree syllabuses is highlighted. The knowledge of
history and philosophy, as well as of the institutions, is essential for a better
understanding of the current situation.
The clear answer given by Kara-Murza to the opening question, could be
summarised as follows: if the collapse of the economic, political,
environmental and social relations is to be avoided, it will definitely have to
break away from some principles of modernity. In particular, we will need to
recover the unity of knowledge and the suitable relationship between science
and its surrounding subjects –values and traditions, ethics and aesthetics–
moving away from the questioned but prevailing anthropological and
mechanistic model that conceives the human being as a rootless being from
nature. It will also be necessary to come back to the unity of freedom and
responsibility concepts.
The proposal of Kara-Murza has been echoed by scientists, philosophers,
economists and thinkers. It seems that they have reacted against modernity,
even those from opposite positions. Kara-Murza, who knows the history of
The West well, joins the critics of the modern reason from his own
perspective. He claims that too many [social] structures are based on a worn-
out model that is supposedly supported by science, but the fact is that neither
the current science, nor the way of understanding the relationship between
science and its environment, are the same as they were in the XVII century.
The old mechanistic ideas are going to be replaced by the concepts of
interdisciplinary, complexity, cooperation, networks and interconnection.
However, this cosmic view –that was promoted a century ago by Russian
thinkers, like Vernadsky- is still not well known in the Western countries,
1](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/isscienceautonomous-160317125803/85/Is-science-autonomous-1-320.jpg)
![where there exists a dualism that randomly establishes limits between human
beings and the world, being and duty, science and values, reason and heart,
myself and my body, etc.
Undoubtedly, the autonomous reason gave rise to the magnificent scientific
and technical development that was brought by modernity. However, this
needed autonomy between science and other knowledge, when it was
extrapolated and radicalized, lead to a certain diminishing of reason, because
it has mixed up “autonomy” with “isolation”. In this way, reason was
understood as the sole scientific reason and it produced the monsters of the
technomorphic societies –capitalist or Marxist societies-, that have been
denounced by many people. It is undeniable that the alternative to the
autonomous science of modernity – science isolated from its surroundings-
cannot be a science under censure, typical of totalitarianisms, but fortunately
these are not the only proposals.
Perhaps Kara-Muza, inspired by Goya’s famous engraving on his walk
through Zaragoza, declared that “the sleep of reason produces monsters, as
does the sleep of heart”. He asked himself whether reason, as well as heart,
really could be autonomous; and he replied that the true progress will be only
possible if the bridges, that were demolished paradoxically in the interest of
providing more progress, are built again. Science and ethics cannot be split
from each other, just as reason and heart cannot. The human being rebels
claiming recognition for his position. This position should be neither a
rootless one from the nature it belongs to, nor reduced to a cog in the wheel
of mercantilist totalitarianism or a biochemical system separated from its
culture. This cultural issue will be the essential key to assume the binomial
freedom-responsibility, daily and throughout history.
It is the aim of the author that this article is useful for encouraging the
discussion about building a new autonomy of science in an essential and
harmonious unity with ethics, restoring at the same time the better values of
modernity.
For more information:
PELACHO, María Teresa. Otra autonomía de la Ciencia. Reflexiones a la luz
del pensamiento de Kara-Murzá. Naturaleza y Libertad. Revista de Estudios
Interdisciplinares, 2014, Vol. 4. P.157-187.
Mª Teresa Pelacho López has a degree in Physics and is a teacher in
Secondary Education in Zaragoza.
Bibliography:
PELACHO, María Teresa. ¿Es autónoma la Ciencia? GeocritiQ. 15 de julio de
2015, nº 153.
[ISSN: 2385-5096]. http://www.geocritiq.com/2015/07/es-autonoma-la-
ciencia
2](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/isscienceautonomous-160317125803/85/Is-science-autonomous-2-320.jpg)
Is science autonomous?
- 1. IS SCIENCE AUTONOMOUS? 15th July 2015. By María Teresa Pelacho López “The present crisis [of social values] affects every cultural strata, but does this crisis call for a radical break from the continuity [the principles of modernity] which has been maintained until now?” With these words Serguei Kara- Murza, professor of history of science and technology, PhD in chemical science and member of the Science Academy of Moscow, began his first class of a course about the philosophy of science at the University of Zaragoza, in the academic year 1994-1995. In this year, this Russian researcher was in the capital of Aragón (Spain) for a stay, although a few years before he had also been invited to different universities in Spain. Some of the articles he published at that time, were in collaboration with the late mathematician and science historian Mariano Hormigón, who is appropriately remembered in this article, because of the great work he and other colleagues did to develop the research into the history of science in Spain. On this subject, according to Serguei Kara-Murza’s thinking, and as a consequence of the main idea of the present article, the importance of the inclusion of the history and philosophy of science in university degree syllabuses is highlighted. The knowledge of history and philosophy, as well as of the institutions, is essential for a better understanding of the current situation. The clear answer given by Kara-Murza to the opening question, could be summarised as follows: if the collapse of the economic, political, environmental and social relations is to be avoided, it will definitely have to break away from some principles of modernity. In particular, we will need to recover the unity of knowledge and the suitable relationship between science and its surrounding subjects –values and traditions, ethics and aesthetics– moving away from the questioned but prevailing anthropological and mechanistic model that conceives the human being as a rootless being from nature. It will also be necessary to come back to the unity of freedom and responsibility concepts. The proposal of Kara-Murza has been echoed by scientists, philosophers, economists and thinkers. It seems that they have reacted against modernity, even those from opposite positions. Kara-Murza, who knows the history of The West well, joins the critics of the modern reason from his own perspective. He claims that too many [social] structures are based on a worn- out model that is supposedly supported by science, but the fact is that neither the current science, nor the way of understanding the relationship between science and its environment, are the same as they were in the XVII century. The old mechanistic ideas are going to be replaced by the concepts of interdisciplinary, complexity, cooperation, networks and interconnection. However, this cosmic view –that was promoted a century ago by Russian thinkers, like Vernadsky- is still not well known in the Western countries, 1
- 2. where there exists a dualism that randomly establishes limits between human beings and the world, being and duty, science and values, reason and heart, myself and my body, etc. Undoubtedly, the autonomous reason gave rise to the magnificent scientific and technical development that was brought by modernity. However, this needed autonomy between science and other knowledge, when it was extrapolated and radicalized, lead to a certain diminishing of reason, because it has mixed up “autonomy” with “isolation”. In this way, reason was understood as the sole scientific reason and it produced the monsters of the technomorphic societies –capitalist or Marxist societies-, that have been denounced by many people. It is undeniable that the alternative to the autonomous science of modernity – science isolated from its surroundings- cannot be a science under censure, typical of totalitarianisms, but fortunately these are not the only proposals. Perhaps Kara-Muza, inspired by Goya’s famous engraving on his walk through Zaragoza, declared that “the sleep of reason produces monsters, as does the sleep of heart”. He asked himself whether reason, as well as heart, really could be autonomous; and he replied that the true progress will be only possible if the bridges, that were demolished paradoxically in the interest of providing more progress, are built again. Science and ethics cannot be split from each other, just as reason and heart cannot. The human being rebels claiming recognition for his position. This position should be neither a rootless one from the nature it belongs to, nor reduced to a cog in the wheel of mercantilist totalitarianism or a biochemical system separated from its culture. This cultural issue will be the essential key to assume the binomial freedom-responsibility, daily and throughout history. It is the aim of the author that this article is useful for encouraging the discussion about building a new autonomy of science in an essential and harmonious unity with ethics, restoring at the same time the better values of modernity. For more information: PELACHO, María Teresa. Otra autonomía de la Ciencia. Reflexiones a la luz del pensamiento de Kara-Murzá. Naturaleza y Libertad. Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinares, 2014, Vol. 4. P.157-187. Mª Teresa Pelacho López has a degree in Physics and is a teacher in Secondary Education in Zaragoza. Bibliography: PELACHO, María Teresa. ¿Es autónoma la Ciencia? GeocritiQ. 15 de julio de 2015, nº 153. [ISSN: 2385-5096]. http://www.geocritiq.com/2015/07/es-autonoma-la- ciencia 2