MATTERS OF HEALTH-ING AND HEALING:
CHARTING CONTESTATIONS (CONTESTED SITES) OF
SCIENCE, CIVILITY, AND EMPOWERMENT.
(Tentative)
Department of Philosophy,
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit,
Kalady,
Kerala.Pin-683574.
Kindly visit: www.healthingandhealing.blogspot.com
Phone:09447262817
Email:pksasidharan4@gmail.com
We are trying to workout a conceptual framework for the new workshop to be conducted by Department. This will be the seventh one in the on-going workshop programme with the umbrella topic 'Thinking and the People: Creativity of expression and Communication'. The pre-workshop brainstorming is intended to identify interested participants, resource persons, collaborators, and other supporters. Unlike in the case of previous workshops, the focus of discussion, including the final topic, shall be finalized on the basis of feed back. Hence, suggestions, comments, criticisms, paper-proposal, etc. are most welcome.
1)....Always nice to think ahead. Your workshop details are awaited. My first reaction is: the title is too comprehensive. A narrowing down will convey greater sense. Keep me informed.
A. Kanthamani
2)... in fact, we want to raise the question whether 'health-ing' or healing is matter? There are hells of matters that go with the project of healing, throughout human history. Healing presupposes a healer, or savior (a Philosopher?)
sasi
3)... You seem to choose between two alternatives (aren’t they?). Your healing is something like social empowerment and may have nothing to do with healing the patients who suffer from diseases. The disease is here is economy. Don't you conflate two different categories of healing? You seem to understand that this needs attention than health-ing which is merely diagnosing and cure. Science matters for the health. Does it mean science is a 'contested site' for healing? Why should it be so?
A. Kanthamani
4)...I am trying to look at ideological ways of privileging certain health/healing traditions as superior (more scientific) to certain other superstitious. However, such claims are very much contested. How, what, why are so? Regarding alternatives—at present all importance is given to healing/therapeutic /medical practices (sciences). That has definite economic and political motivations. my argument is for the importance of health-ing, which would not be entailing much attraction at market wile. Yes, science is a contested site. Similarly the notions of civility and empowerment. Those who want to go by these notions have the ideological project of privileging them on the basis of constructing their opposite categories such as superstition, primitive, and undeveloped. So it might be useful to look at how exactly these ideological operatives are put in practice with respect to discourses on health and development. I am not concerned with social-healing other than healing ailments. Even the social-healing has its own ideological agenda. So I would rather undertake a critique of social-healing projects that are being promoted by the global organisations.the global spiritual/religious healing projects are also having the same kind of ideological privileging. I think you have taken health-ing in other way around. it might be a non-profit venture for global powers and other power brokers. The so-called uncivilized, irrational, unscientific heal thing cultures are being eradicated by the healing agencies….
Sasi
5)….Thank you for the invitation to think about and offer my thoughts re: healing. A wonderful subject. I just came across this information: http://africahealing.org/ Of course, it's healing from a Christian perspective and it seems, to me, that the Christian perspective is not the favored perspective with many as they believe it to be an exclusive and divisive perspective. I would differ, of course. I do believe that any belief system has the characteristics of being exclusive and divisive just by their very nature. As I was thinking over the concept of healing the word STEWARD came to my mind. According to my belief system, the first assignment that mankind was giving was to BE A GOOD STEWARD of the things that they were given. And, that is, in fact, the first failing of mankind that demonstrated his propensity for failure. If mankind had been truly grateful, satisfied and content with what was initially given (remember, with the first instance of man there were no factories, scientists, politicians or anything of their fabrications), there would not have been "a turning away" from what was given and from who gave it. The initial state of harmony, with mankind committed to that harmony would still exist. To restore that harmony (homeostasis), which I believe is the foundational concept of healing, we would have to rediscover what IT is that restores the dynamic of homeostasis for any given group of people or location, which is varied. If there is a common denominator in all that, I would think it would be to recognize WHO gave mankind WHAT, in the first place. This going back and recognizing THE GIVER is where the battle of man's 'isms' begins. And, because mankind is at war over his isms, all other wars are born out of that. In my mind, therefore, only ONE event could bring about the paradigm shift that we all long for, which is the restoration of homeostasis. And, as a Christian, it is clear to me that mankind can NEVER be in a state of peace, on any subject, without being reconciled to God, which is for me through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. With my belief in Christ and His atoning work on the cross being misperceived as exclusive and divisive to other people's 'isms', it is thought that Christianity is at fault and the basis for disharmony, when actually, according to my belief, it is the ONLY way to reestablish harmony and therefore, healing, first between one's self and God, which results in healing of self and then is the foundational dynamic of healing between one's self and others and then between one's self and the environment. I can't say between one's self and 'the world' (as a system of thought and action) as 'the world' system will, in fact, fail. So, my dear friend, I will take this opportunity to respond to you on the subject of healing but, otherwise, I don't believe I should distract such an important conference with my small thoughts. There are many, many aspects to this concept of healing but until the root of defect/disease/decay is identified, only 'bandaides' can be applied.
Elaine
6)…Elaine, you have done an excellent job here - a) answering Sasi regarding the content such a Workshop should incorporate (it’s a masterful 'meta' structure in to that you have rigged with all possible scope to it) and b) answering (in a way demonstrated it) the Christian perspective. The clarity is so to the point and you know, while I was pondering it, the story of Rachel and her baby boy that fled Sarah's jealousy and ended up on the brim of the desert not knowing what she should do next, came to me - the part where the angel in his astonishment at this dangerous ordeal the woman is planning to undertake flopped out that simple question: 'Where are you going? Not into the desert? Not with that young child of yours? Go back!' This story illustrates the responsibility of man in healing processes (he is actually the one who has initiated the 'sicknesses' that now need to be healed) ... he has to leave behind his foolhardiness and must confront his position, the 'where' he is at and 'return'. And then there's also that divine intervention in the story, hinted at with the angel's appearance, that providence and promise that God is really the one who does it for man in Jezus Christ.
Argo Spier
7)….A title such as 'Healing and healthing as an urgent prerogative for modern society' covers the bill in my opinion. But this of course is just a suggestion ... keeping simplicity in the centre. …Regarding Christianity ... it isn't really a religion, you know! Christians are merely reborn 'Children of God' and as far as defending Christianity ... well, they don't have any business doing it God, their Father, takes care of it. Of course it would be nice if they behave in such a way that non-Christians CAN SEE from what family stock they come ... This is however not the case so often, hence the NEED of urgent healthing and healing. In my reply to Elaine, I refer to a story (not a myth, just a story) of an angel calling for heed - in a weird way that same angel may be calling upon you, asking from you: 'Where are you going to with your Workshop?' And its answer is the same as in the story. It says 'Go back, go back ... for the healing'. Isn't it strange? Because this is precisely the key note in present day psychiatry - the theme of 'return'. Return to the innocence of childhood and the many things that went 'wrong' then. Elaine has a very strong point ... No return (admittance) then No Healing or process of Healthing. And No God? It may be interesting what the many religious streams in Kerala may be saying about this. But yes, it’s only a story... or isn't it? What is apparent today - the need to return or the return itself? Healing of the need to be healed?
Argo Spier
8)…Personally, my first thought "health-ing" vs. "healing". If I understand "health-ing", at all, just as my own response to the word, I would have to say that I can't see how one could "health" without identifying why one would need to "health". It seems that for one to see one's need to "health", one would have to see one's "un-health" and one's need to move into "health", which would be "health-ing". Whereas, for one to recognize one's need for "healing", one would have to recognize what it was that one needed "healing" of or from. I think that the concept of "health-ing" is an activity that one takes the initiative and responsibility of doing. And, to need a healing, I think one must look beyond oneself, recognizing that one does not have the capacity to achieve the healing with one's own resources. Within Christianity, according to scripture, there is impetus to "health-ing" scattered throughout. For example, it's a sin to be a glutton. And, one should not get drunk, lie, cheat or steal. There are dietary laws and laws of cleanliness, etc. However, more so than the need for "health-ing", which is actions of the individual that are possible to accomplish by one's own behaviour, actions or resources, there is a need for "healing". There is a need to restore that which is lost and one is unable to facilitate that restoration. Fundamental the Christianity is the need to restore the broken and lost relationship between man and God due to the first instance of mankind's rebellion and disobedience to God. The story is much more than God punishing man. The basic dynamic of man and God's relationship is either we love Him and want to willing be in a love relationship with Him, or we don't. The choice has always been mankind's. God is committed to Love because He is, in fact, Love. God is love. By that equation, God cannot and does not negate Himself. He IS Love, in the abosolute. It's definitive. To experience love, one must experience God. To experience God, one loves. When one loves, one experiences God. To not love is to not experience God. To not experience God is to not love. That is Christianity! Whatever crap man has done, supposedly, in the name of God, is damned by God. They have acted without love and therefore against God. It is judged and condemned by Love, Himself. There is a scripture that says, "If you see any good in me, you see the Lord." I cannot lay hold of my ability of being able to love as my own. The good in me, if there is any, is of God, He manifested through me. A member of a man's household is a representative of that household. An employer is a representative of the company he works for. A government official represents the government he's affiliated with. As a Christian, we are ambassadors for Christ. If I call myself a Christian but I act without love, I am a liar and condemned to existence outside of a relationship with God. Religion is the same as politics, there's no difference. Religion serves man's own interpretation of his spiritual beliefs, regardless of what they are. Religion has nothing to do with a relationship with God. So, to receive healing, as prescribed by Christian scripture, one must recognize that the healing is from outside of one's self, other than any resources that might be available. Healing is a gift that is given by God. It is supra-natural. Its purpose is God's good pleasure, for His glory and His purpose. Just as not receiving a healing is for God's good pleasure, for His glory and His purpose. What is the purpose of the proposed conference? There is a move of God in the "latter days" where He will, in fact, pour out his spirit healing old, young, men and women. It's happening in many diverse places of the world as believers are abandoning religion and going after a relationship with God with their whole heart, body, soul, spirit and mind. To His Glory. Maybe has heard of this and is contemplating what is happening but he is not open to choicing to trust and believe in God as presented via the Christian Gospel of Jesus Christ? Whatever the case, until man can humble himself in the sight of the Lord and acknowledge His need of a relationship with God, man is doomed to be lost from God and to relinquish the healing restoration that Jesus Christ has provided according to the will of God the Father and revealed through the Holy Spirit. It is by child-like faith that we come to Him, recognizing that He lives and that He desires us passionately. No God, no healing, no health.
Elaine
9)……In fact, I want to put it in the form of question ‘health-ing’ or healing? What matters, health-ing or healing? The project of healing has been providing food for all kinds of religious, cultural, economic, andpolitical domination. …Workshop wants to propose a rethink on the dominant/prevailing ways of understanding on health and health-ing. Of course the secondary sense of healthing and healing has to come under the ambit of it. However both of you seem to go around the questions related to religious/spiritual healing. If go by their metaphorical senses, it would be leading, I am afraid, to wilderness. It is better and convenient to start with their primary senses. So the question of issues, attitudes related to health care traditions, programs are important. What has happening around it. What does its history say/show? I am trying to look at ideological ways of privileging certain health/healing traditions as superior (more scientific) to certain other superstitious. However, such claims are very much contested. How, what, why are so? It is in this context the question of alternatives is posed-- health-ing or healing? What does really matter to man? Health or healing? Will there be a society free of healing regimes? We all tend to retain and strength the regimes of healing not healthing. It is something similar to encouraging beggars by giving bits and wastes. At present all importance are given to healing/therapeutic /medical practices (sciences). That has definite economic and political motivations. My argument is for the importance of health-ing, which would not be entailing much attraction at market wile. Here of course, science becomes a contested site. Similarly, the notions of civility and empowerment. Those who want to go by these notions have the ideological project of privileging them on the basis of constructing their opposite categories such as superstition, primitive, and undeveloped. So it might be useful to look at how exactly these ideological operatives are put in practice with respect to discourses on health and development. I am not concerned with social-healing other than healing ailments. Even the social-healing has its own ideological agenda. So I would rather undertake a critique of social-healing projects that are being promoted by the global organisations.the globalspiritual/religious healing projects are also having the same kind of ideological privileging. I think you have taken health-ing in other way around. It might be a non-profit venture for global powers and other power brokers. The so-called uncivilized, irrational, unscientific healthing cultures are being eradicated by the healing agencies.
sasi
10) …..Firstly I had wanted to push the idea of the spill-over of the topic into 'social healing' aspects and their historical origins of wrong aesthetics and also felt that the bare basics of contemporary ecological issues (climate change, misuse of antibiotics, population growth) should have spin-off debate as well. Secondly, Elaine’s response is illustrative of Christian western thought and response. I had wanted that you get insight into it. It may be of help should the communication of your activities expand 'westwards'. When dealing with Christian expressions, understanding of how real metaphoric insight for them is important. I give you an example - when I received your summary I immediately thought 'yes, that angel got to him ... clarity ... he is talking clear sense now'. You must admit that although it is a story, the mere idea of a question such as 'you are not going into the desert with this, are you?' makes the mind focus to the extreme and one cannot but re-ponder stances and start all over again.
There is however one issue I think you should consider ... the word 'healthing'. I am not so sure that it carries the load. It isn't really an English academic term and having it in the title may lessen the expectations from the (western) reader. It may have caused the response of Elaine to a large extend.
….since clarity is broaden when a) one wants to make sense of what it is one is after and b) one is 'talking' to several cultures and traditions at once - it therefore might be worth it to consider some ideas that can lead to definitions and outlines of concepts - I discussed 'healthing' with Elaine and this is about what we reached as a conclusion:
A definition? - "What comes to my mind regarding "healthing" is what one could refer to as when a person is motivated to take personal responsibility for assessing one's own health and seeking information as to how one's level of health might be improved and then taking action to implement activities or life changes to achieve the new level of health. Also, seeking resources to be utilized , such as informational resources, as well as programs, that can be accessed for maintaining or improving one's health. It's developing a mindset and habits that become incorporated into one's life routine that will lend theirselves to greater health. So, I think it would work to 'coin' and use "healthing" to express becoming more healthy as a personal mindset & culture. "Healing" is a whole other concept, I think. For me, "healing" indicates that there is a need for "healing" where there is a serious breech in one's health status and it has become imperative that a person needs healing. "Healing" can be a derivative of becoming more healthy or "healthing" such as getting a richer source of vitamins/nutrients, or finding a better of source of water, or refraining from eating certain items, walking when possible or seeking out a program to improve vision. I do still believe, the way I'm thinking, that "healthing" is something that initiates with the individual and is a demonstration of a person taking responsibility, as best they can, for a better and greater level of health. And, "healing" is something that is outside of and greater than what an individual can achieve to obtain immediate relief from negative health status."
The point you made re having it in the title, yes, I agree, its 'playful' and it intrigues but it is a word really with no fixed borders re meaning. In some way there must come a consensus about the limits of its meaning.
Argo
11) …..In fact, I am thinking and writing from the context of our culture, history, social reality, history, experience etc. my thoughts are in a way to engage with the problems that we encounter. The language, its syntax, figurative, emphasis, puns, etc are more or less determined by the immediate surroundings and the challenges posed to it. Since I have been working with the health tradition related to Kalarividya (or Kalarippayat) and kalari-marma therapeutic practices in Kerala with which I am engaged, with its history and contemporary crises. In order to draw its insights in to the general theoretical discourse, that I am trying to find out a conceptual framework from where I could share the matter with other similar issues. A common purview under which the issues related to the kalari related therapeutic practices can be discussed would be the on-going debated on the health care perspective, politics of science, modernity, civility, progress, development, etc. I am in the midst of numerous intellectual/cultural issues. A common purview under which the issues related to the kalari related therapeutic practices can be discussed would be the on going debated on the health care perspective, politics of science, modernity, civility, progress, development, etc. I am in the midst of numerous intellectual/cultural issues. So it is quite natural on my part getting mixed up with many things at a time. This will be creating communication problem for others, especially for people from distant cultures. The problem of incommensurability of meaning—so to say in philosophical jargon. …Your definition of ‘healthing’ is interesting. I should say, I have put in words what have in my thoughts. Thanks a lot. It becomes very evident from the way you have distinguished healthing and healing, why we should go for healthing, instead of healing. Since healthing has been undermined in the present day world, especially in the modern urban civilization, healing has assumed to the status of a prestigiouss symbol of progress and development. When healing becomes the symbol of nobility, proud, dignity, etc., we are only spitting while lying down on our back. Of course I am not undermining the healthing dimensions or significance of healing. But all our political and religious models of healing seem to be lacking a value of healthing.
The problem of incommensurability of meaning—so to say in philosophical jargon. I am very open. That is why I am trying to get feed back from others.
sasi
12)…A healing in any tradition is esoteric wisdom. Health is the business of science. Healing relates to the whole organism the mind and the body, the bodily subjectivity, to use Merleau-ponty's words. Healthing is a matter of specialization, business of the experts. So we have so many departments in hospitals. Healing is a legacy like music. To attain the expertise in healthcare you are be a lonely, selfish, competitive individual.
Manjulika Ghosh.
13)…Healing, according to dictionary and practical meaning is: the act or process of regaining health. Does it really require a Healer? Health and heal are from the same linguistic root. Healing is the process and health is the result. Why should we have neologism? This new word 'health-ing' appears to be some external healer healthing! Can 'non-ideological' pure truth can ever be achieved----?
Historically has it ever been achieved? Science uses numbers and language- both these things are cultural constructs-- and hence embedded with ideologies that make those cultures.... 'Lived world' too is not free from 'ideology'. It is thickly intertwined with ideologies that produce whatsoever the lived world. Where is the escape?
P. Madhu
14)…I have a different take on health. In fact I want to ask the question 'healthing or healing?' here my preference goes to healthing. It is due to the lack of healthing we are prone to become patience. So the exploiters do not for healthing, they are interested only in sustaining the market interests, of controlling people in the name of medical care business. Political and religious models of healing also go in the same line. Healing programmes, ideologies, rituals etc are instruments of exploitation and domination.
Sasi
15)...Good thinking, but I am far flung in these matters. However, a conceptual analysis of anything shall be worthwhile in Philosophy, not merely analysis such as the linguistic ones as it gets carried on these days, but conceptual analysis, given the desideratum of epistemology of the west, which is conceptual clarity, or clarity at the level of concepts. Contests are what makes philosophy academic philosophy perhaps, some thoughts for people to ponder on, which ought not to slip into both sophism as well as solipsism. One among the "Ashta Daridryas" which Buddha identifies is simply following things both without really understanding and internalising, just because 'every one' says such things as 'something'. Philosophers ought not to get into trends without convictions, on the contrary, they must become trend setters for others. Let us also not forget the desideratum of epistemology in Indian systems as well, 'sa vidya ya vimuktaye', which shall be liberation, Moksha.
......Indeed, thinking is not specific only to Philosophers, and should any one feel so, then it is at once un-philosophical. I have no quarrel with any one who aspires to get rid of all 'forms' 'isms' and even philosophy; to my mind, these things do not make any difference to thinking, or to that extent, anything. personally, I prefer to use such terms as philosophy and the like, which shall not be contrary to any new thought. Healing and Healthing, indeed an interest concept. Instantly i feel inclined to agree with you that healthing (as you put it) is to be given much more importance, as healing is an antecedent to faulty healthing. Exploitation! Naturally non-human, but that is the way civilisation goes, as a matter of fact. This is not to say that exploitation is not to be fought against, I was simply breathing my philosophical resignation. Again, exploitation of man by man and nature by man etc. are not the only malady in human existence, leave alone modus exploitation: whether religious, political and the like.
Girishkumar T.S.
16)...Is it something like the contests between rig vedis, samavedis and yajur vedis?
In an evolving society the enlightenment brought in by scientific knowledge is the basis for civil behavior and the certainties brought in by civil behavior is the source of empowerment. The contests starts when the process of evolution is put on back burner and all eyes are on management of establishments.
But the world of practical living is the "Heaven of Trisanku" where the science is truncated to classical forms for practical application, civility is the straightjackets of discipline and power comes from the ability to assert amiably. In such a world the scope for contest between science, civility and empowerment are everywhere. A categoric study of the areas of contestation might help in keeping the spirit of evolution alive. A couple of weeks back I was reading "The Last Confession" by Morris West. The process of consigning philosophers to stakes for burning continues in different forms in places where establishments form to preserve and exercise arbitrary power. I take the meaning that a philosopher is an extreme scientist.
A V G Warrier
17... You're throwing the baby with the bathwater. Not all Science is ideology. Science as practiced in lab is not ideology. Marketing science may be. Without going round the lab and crying wolf, enter the lab to find out what the scientist does. How do you change his attitude without knowing whether he is ideological? Is there a non-ideological means by which you pursue science? You cannot contest science for its ideology. That would be presumptuous. You should use the rationality of science to overthrow ideology of whatever kind. Don't you think so?A.Kanthamani
18)...by the metaphor of throwing baby, you are alleging me being presumptuous. Contestation does not seem to be a rejection of science. To speak metaphorically, it is an attempt to give a healthy bath to the baby rather than throwing out with bathwater. It is a felt need of the present time to raise question of healthiness of health care or healing practices and sciences. So-called health sciences tend to define health in a particular way favorable for particular purpose. Thereby claims of science become exclusivist and ideological. When you say 'not all science is ideology’, you are admitting the fact that entire science is not non-ideological. There may not be a non-ideological science, but what matters is the question what extent particular ideology or science of health is healthy? And when you say science is what that takes place in laboratory, you seem to be presenting only a particular conception (ideology) of science. I think science was neither originated I the laboratory no it functioned rationally always. it might be appearing that it is only at the time of putting into practice that science becomes ideological and market oriented. Sometimes, even what is taking pace the lab would be determined by the ideological motivations and purposes. Depending on the nature of scientific project, funding agency, concept of science, political agency etc., and scientific discoveries tend to portray reality the way they want. So, apart from the logic of practice, there seems to have any purity in science. Where there is a different logic, science becomes a "contested site". It is not from a non-ideological point that science is contested. Contestation takes place when a particular ideological scientific claim is presented as non-ideological (as scientific or rational). Rationality of science (logic of science) is not something already free from ideology. Hence, 'contestation of science' involves a contestation of its claims to rationality (universality and objectivity). What can be termed as 'therapeutic violence' that is perpetrated by the modern medicine (Allopathy) that sets the context for the present workshop. Here we have to start taking about what is going between the practitioners and ideologues of different systems of medicine in the world in general, and in Kerala or India, particularly.
sasi
19)... When I talk about science as it is being done in the lab, I mean that the things on which there is consensus among those who practice science which backs up largely the scientific method. Seeing a microbe through the microscope is not ideological. This is the common conception of science. This has nothing to do with ideology. The HIV is studied by a scientist is not ideological. It is rational. If this is not rationality, then what else according to you is rational is not clear. Science can never portray the world they want it because that cannot be agreed to by other scientists. They have to get the consensus before going any further. It is intersubjective when two scientists agree on what they do and this is what they share. There is no reason why this should be presented as an ideological enterprise. No one presents it in this way. The contest of rationality is different from the contest of ideology. You can't presume that every scientific project is tainted by ideology. This would be self-defeating as the scientist can very well apply the same canon to test his ideology. Ideology is not based on any rationality or scientific method. A scientist has no reason to follow ideology. A committed scientist would reject even funding based on ideology. Allopathy is not ideology and it is not colored by any ideological consideration. When you buy a Dispirin from a pharmacist, there is no basis for reflecting whether this contains any ideological content. You take it for the cure and not for any ideological purpose. The method is diagnosis and cure. We don't enquire whether the funding for research on dispirin is ideologically based or the method of manufacturing is ideological. Allopathy is scientifically validated and there is no validity available for many other indigenous systems. Naturally they want to conform to a standard. The students of Homepathy want to imitate the science to which the other group does not agree. If Homeo is following scientific method, it is but natural allopathic practitioners should follow this since this is a method which is intersubjectively available. The charge of ideology is a facade. We can choose to practice Homeopathy quite independent of the charge. There is nothing wrong in it. The only objection is that it is questionable by the prevailing scientific standards. If science is a contested site, ideology also may meet the same fate. That does not mean that the ideology of science is to be contested. It will not lead us anywhere further.
A.Kanthamani
20)....When we talk about the rationality or ideology of science, we cannot simply take it in terms of laboratory process and output. The cultural-world is also important. What is culture of science? I do not think it has taken us to a healthy or egalitarian culture. The handled-science, not the lab-science is contested. Even microscope could give us a erroneous picture of the world. That is what the history of science itself shows. What is the case of different paradigms? Falsified models were also giving us a picture of world produced from the labs.
sasi
21).....It is always good to react at least for making others to understand your views. The relation between culture and science is tenuous. Science is not directly related to culture. Science studies nature. May be nature and culture as binary products. Science is not expected to produce a particular culture. Microscope does not give any erroneous picture; otherwise there won't be any progress in science. Contrary to what you believe the history of science registers progress. You now agree that science as practiced by scientists in the lab should not be contested so long as they are consensual. If they are not consensual then some theories are debunked. The best theories alone survive. What exactly you mean by 'handled-science'? There cannot be two views on science. Science is the peak of human rationality. It can subject ideology under analysis. But it is not complete. So we are not clear about the circumstances where there could be a Theory of Everything. We know that the universe is governed by science (double helix and fundamental equations in science). There is no room for ideology here.
A.Kanthanmani
22)...the question of relationship between science and relation is interesting to think about. If science is a body of knowledge, it would definitely be a cultural product (artifact). Here I use the word 'culture' to signify that which is produced by human effort. If whatever that has been produced by man is likely to get the imprints of his/her interest. The progress of science is only a modification of interest. The modified theories were also produced by microscope like devices in the laboratory. Then how can we say machines can represent the reality in the same way? Once a theory is modified or refuted, is it becomes irrational or superstitious? When they were rational or scientific, it could produce certain results which are useful to people. In a way wrong theories or disproved scientific laws had some kind of useful application. if the scientific progress marks only a difference in the degree of its utility, convenience, cruelty, danger, luxury, profit, welfare, exploitation, etc. etc. we are abound to understand science/scientific truth in terms of its cultural/ideological values. This is what you seem to mean when you say that good theories replaces wrong theories. If survival of best theories is taken the criteria for the progress of science, there many have worst theories of science and their applications which keep surviving and domination in the world. Here we have to consider the proportion of utility of handled or applied science in relation to its laboratory success. We have also another question to consider: why there are differences in the ways of conceiving science in different cultures? Why there are different notions of health, happiness, progress etc.? As you said, it is interesting to question to others for making ourselves clear.
Sasi
23)....Science is the study of nature from an empirical point of view. The generalizations are arrived at after careful observation, and using a strictly empirical/statistical verifications. The tools are method, theory, experiment, laws etc., it must be fool-proof before it is accepted. If not, it is re-done and new theories emerge. When old theories are found to be wrong they are discarded. If the empirical content is re-usable, they are open to further investigation. You cannot call it as a body of knowledge but it is a systematic body of knowledge (axiomatic/ontic) called 'Theory'. It is a by product of culture, not a product of culture in a straightforward sense. It depends on scientific culture which is an empirically-based study of natural phenomena. It is not an artifact. It is not subjective but intersubjective. Most sciences eliminate subjectivity as much as possible. Whatever remains of the subject is still empirical (neural workings of the brain). You can say this is how Einstein's brain constructs his theory which is very different - means that it is radically modified- from that of Newton which is still empirical (his neural workings of brain). This is what is called meta science. It is a science about science. Machines are models of reality. They do not represent reality directly but one among many models. Every model is given a mathematical structure (Nature is mathematically structured just as your brains are computationally structured.) When atheory is 'falsified' it does not become irrational. It is the limit of rationality as it was at that time. Ideology plays no role in falsifying the earlier theories. There is logic behind science and the development is based on the consensus of the empirically minded scientists. Science is based on one's own culture. It is based on the culture that is evident in advanced scientific societies. It is by no means clear that science belong to their culture. It is common to mankind (just as we study physics which is a product of western culture). Science does not differ from culture to culture. What you call science may not be superstition except when it is assessed to be so. In that case it does not become part of science. What you call science is relatively free from culture. True, science is a by-product of western culture. If you claim that we also have science, it is again a by-product of our culture. As sciences, they may not be much different. The difference is accountable in science. They may be different ways in which the brain constructs them. Ultimately if brains work in different ways (pre-scientific, scientific, and pseudo-scientific) it can be studied through empirical means. All western philosophy is generally responses towards the science of the day. They succeed one another because science is making a fast stride. Cognitive science for example is a 'response' to current cellular and molecular biology. It succeeds quite a lot and you cannot say it has succeeded to the extent desirable. The debates in science grow as debates in philosophy (in the West). The same claim cannot be made about our science and traditions. Since you have never been taught the rudiments of western philosophy as rudiments of science, you always thing that philosophy is different from science in the west. Descartes, Kant were Newtonians. Russell and Whitehead were influenced by relativity theories. You have to master as much science as philosophy.
A. Kanthamani
24).....The main point of present discussion is the contestation of science (in relation to health/healing practices). You have taken the view that science cannot be contested because it is rational, empirical, and objective. I have taken a view that there are a lot of elements in science which can be treated as ideological, irrational, spiritual, mechanical, reductionist, unethical, destructive, exploitative, cultural-subjective specific, etc. Hence, its methods, findings, applications, effectiveness, motivations, priority, success, progress, promotions, ethics, etc. are contestable. The basic issue that crops up here seems to be pertaining to the differences in conceiving what science is all about. If it is a product of human effort to negotiate with the nature, the functioning of natural reality (including man’sown) whatever that makes social and individual life healthy, peaceful, and meaningful on an equity basis is worthy of characterizing creative science or knowledge. Instead, what is being projected as science from certain quarters throughout the history of man appears to be exclusivist. There appears to be working certain desire of domination and urgings of power. That is why people tend to construe the ability of scientific thinking to certain cultures alone, by saying ‘physics is a product of western culture’, ‘science is a by-product of western culture.’ I am not able to understand the appropriateness of making a hypothetical statement like ‘if you claim that we also have science…’ it is exactly in relation to such an exclusivist and antagonist attitude to science and knowledge that I want to propose a debate on the contested sites of science (health science). It is also interesting to see the way you have brought in the relationship of philosophy and science. Here I have more things to say later. Both are consistent in treating everything in terms of binary oppositions. If there is no binary scheme, there is no place of the supremacy or hierarchy that characterize the way both are understood in the west.
Sasi
25)....You slowly come to see the weakness of your argument when youcall attention to 'science as projected in some quarters' with which alone you seem to quarrel. I do not belong to that quarter. I speak generally ofscience as a human enterprise that can be intersubjectively validated or duplicated by others and hence rational. The list of 'contesting points' you have supplied are hotch-potch: one can agree that it is mechanical, reductionist, but I have not agreed that it is irrational, spiritual, unethical, destructive and ideological (about this the debate arose), and I look at the exploitative at the level of marketing science. But I don't understand cultural-subjective specific. But then you must have a model of irrationality to call science as irrational; so also spirituality etc. If you claim science itself is a model of irrationality then all that we have are only based on this particular model of irrationality- including your so-called ideology. No one disagrees with you when you describe science as 'human effort to negotiate with nature'. This is exactly what science does. It does at a level in which there is great deal of intersubjective agreement. If anything similar to this you have in mind, and if has intersubjective agreement, then it can be called science. Science is related to power only to the extent that it gives dominance in the archeology of knowledge. It is open to us to call Indian science is science in the same sense as science in the west and vice versa provided it fulfills all the general traits that are universally understood. In that case science does not belong to any culture. When I say that it is a byproduct of the western culture, I mean to say that it represents the current understanding of science. The sciences we study (perhaps including philosophy with a slant for science) as physics or chemistry comes mainly from the west. We can add saying that Indian science more ancient than the west (the onus is on us to prove that) or else we can add our new discoveries to general corpus of science. This should be recognised as Indian contribution to science and science that is exclusivist only to India.
A. Kanthamani
26)....yes, you are right in capturing my target. I am yet to figure out their way of argument for undermining utility/competence of certain knowledge and practices related to health care and healing, on account of their attributed irrationality or non-scientific. If a particular healing method is more effective than the talked-about scientifically sophisticated why that is undermined for being superstitious? How do we go about such dilemma? Here the concept of science is in operative to suppress those traditions which are in more access, less expensive, less complicated, devoid of side-effective. Such practices are not encouraged and developed to the conceptual stigma of non-science. The specific purpose of proposed workshop is to take up such issues.
Sasi
27) .....I am not sure whether I am capturing your target. What I am saying is that anything could be science if it could be intersubjectively verified and the experiments are duplicated. The healing method has not proved to be science of the sort I have in mind. Certainly they cannot claim to be 'more effective' than the scientifically vouchsafed medical science. It is no part of the reason that they call them superstitions. They remain as mumbo-jumbo, voodoo, witchcraft, divine healing etc until they prove their scientific credentials. There is no dilemma here to choose between the two: we choose science and wait for the other to turn up with their empirical proof. Science never tries to suppress these beliefs. They are open to pursue the path of science. It is not that they are discouraged. They are always demanded to wear their cards on the sleeve. They can never replace the standard medical practice which is already making rapid progress globally. Even if they come up with a 'science of healing' they may not be absorbed into mainstream medicine unless they satisfy the criteria laid down for the practice of medical science. The best way for these waiting-to-be integrated medicines is to learn and practice science in the normative way that is practiced by current medical science.
A. Kanthamani
28)...if a 'traditional' healing method is efficient than the modern medical practice, why it should stand in need of getting ratified by the standard norms of science? Hectic activities are going on around the world to make scientific validation of traditional practices, and make them integrate with the so-called 'mainstream medical system'. Market interests apart, what is the need of a competent practice to be verified or ratified by scientific laws? How it becomes effective if is already science? These are some of the issues with which I want to get engaged.
sasi
29).....You are assuming too much when you say that healing is more efficient that modern medical practice. No one has proved it so far. You can claim it to be as good as modern medicine and you have to demonstrate that it can withstand scientific scrutiny (including experiments which can be duplicated in the lab.) May be true that 'hectic activities' are going on all over the world and integrate this into mainstream. The ancient systems can be integrated once they are proved to be on par. There is no doubt about it. Much of this work is pursued mostly in the west. The Indian researchers are always talking like you: 'more efficient'. They are psychologically troubled to make it 'more efficient'- not to make as efficient as any other system. They must succeed on multiple fronts so as to get the recognition from scientific community at large. No one claims that it is already a science like the science of the yoga! The science of healing must be open for science, not that it should be ratified. The method itself is an attestation- the method that is shared by the community. There may be precious diagnostic cure in the herbal medicine. But one should take the herb to the lab and testify that the results of its use can be proved to be so under lab conditions. These nature products must be standardized and method of curing is scenically validated. The Herb --> Cure must become a causal hypothesis to be proved. This alone will convince the scientific community. Even without contesting western science and its ideology you can demonstrate its worth.
A. Kanthamani
30)...by bringing the efficiency-question of traditional healing methods to our discussion, i do not want to present them they are as such efficient in their principle, method, operational/institutional arrangements for care giving (trauma care, crisis management), etc, as that are achieved by the present-day modern system. Achievements to that level are due to the well organized policies and programmes (through orgnised research activities and development schemes). I am trying to raise their efficiency from the point of their potentials for a healthier life-care practice. In this regard, what matters seems to be the aspect that how they are experienced by people. When you say that no one has proved their efficiency so far you appear to go by a lab-test conception of proof. though i have no idea about the statistical accounts, most of the people all over the world relaying on the so-called non-modern/non-scientific/traditional methods for their health care or healthy-healing (health-ing) purposes, despite all kinds of campaign against them. Here the troubling matter is to go by the demand 'to demonstrate that it can withstand scientific scrutiny (including experiments which can be duplicated in the lab.)'. Similarly with the argument that 'the ancient systems can be integrated once they are proved to be on par. There is no doubt about it'. can't we think in terms of allowing them to sustain, enrich, and even develop them in their own ways and means? and when the prevailing scientific activity of appropriation of traditional knowledge has become so conspicuous ['May be true that 'hectic activities' are going on all over the world and integrate this into mainstream', '...Much of this work is pursued mostly in the west'], why do keep insisting the need of their scientific validation (need of submitting for the western attestation or certification, so to say)? When we say we need 'to get the recognition from scientific community at large' we are expected to give an explanation on the subjectivity or agency (authority, competency) of science or scientists (capitalists, corporate, imperialists). This is not a simple question of any cultural bias. The question of contestation of science, civility and empowerment (development) etc goes on lines of their political intervention to exclude and discriminate whatever felt to be challenging to them. Sasi
31)..... find a comment regarding 'contestation' and a take on your discussion with Dr. Kanthamani.The purpose however of the piece is to contribute to the preparations of the Woekshop and entice others to participate......My meager attempt here, to share in your search for meaning, is to be seen as broad spectrum, and the touch of Martin Heidegger will be distinguishable in my thoughts. We had this before … roads that lead to knowledge and meaning. I will try to deal with the issue of the contestation that came up in your discussion with Dr. Kanthamani. In the process I will touch on the linearity of the roads to meaning, the possible essence of culture and science within their historic perspectives and the issue of contestation in scientific method. And I sincerely hope that at least some of what is said may serve as stimulation for further brainstorming, assisting your and other’s attempts to generate meaning to the search for meaning.Meaningful roads to meaning (sense and knowledge) are linear and there are timelines to them, the historic perspective, and any discussion dealing with the relationship between culture and the sciences, when it is to be scientifically responsible, has to incorporate the a priori, that the activity of scientific research is a search for meaning (sense) sec, and on a further level, a search into the meaning of meaning itself. The search for, and of, meaning and the meaning of knowledge is a process, or, a walk in the woods (as Heidegger has put it). When one walks a road one passes some exquisite scenery and remembers it. These moments constitute the historic perspective. We have to be aware of this and constantly keep tract of these moments when we want to stay on course in our search for meaning. We have to be aware where we come from, how the road had circled in the past, what the meaning is of the semantic explanations we had encountered and what languages we have used to reach the point where we conduct a discussion. The searches for meaning, with its historical growth processes, is something that takes place inside culture (we have to know this too) and it constitutes both culture and the search for meaning itself. We have to acknowledge that it also originates culture and is culture at the same time. Culture is however not to be understood as a finished product, as we tend to observe it in our momentous takes from certain vantage points of discussion. It’s a livelihood of meaning (knowledge); ‘in a process’ that has a constant ongoing of redefinition of meaning as its means and driving force. It is the sense man makes of himself, and the way he interprets knowledge (and the meaning of knowledge), that makes meaning meaningful, and (again) this happens within a time spanned (history) dynamic. The history of sense (meaning) is to be defined as culture too, when not only the meaning, of the search for meaning, is observed, but also when the meaning of the search for sense (meaning) is taking place and this is observed, too. There’s the idea of accumulation and also a sense of origination to it. Science (logos, a Greek word), and the sciences (all, example biology = bios + logos and archaeology = in the beginning moving + logos), are closely attached to this and are, in their essence, ‘culture’, too. Science expresses the meaning of what culture is, namely the search for, and of, meaning. It looks for meaning, but not for truths the same as culture does (although it is debatable whether culture looks for truths). Science is an essential part of the integral essence of meaning, of and in culture, and the phenomenon of science, and its specific way of inquiry, verification and annulment of verification, developed in time and is part of various other phenomena (among others language), within culture, that bears with the search of meaning. A possible valid definition of the essence of science is to be found in the meaning (essence) of language (expression) that describes the essence of the development of the search for meaning. But please note that my Consulting Editor, EP from the USA disagrees with the phrasing of this last sentence – she suggests a formulation as the following deconstruction: The essence of science is to be found in the meaning (essence) of language (expression) that describes the essence of the development of the search for meaning. Both formulations should be valued for their different meaning and/or complimentary sides. Having said this, the point to focus on in a discussion regarding the relationship between culture and the sciences is not the meaning of science in culture, or science as a separate category from culture, but science as a process within and of culture and language. One can go a long way when language is viewed = culture = the expression of science. But as said, it’s the ticking off of the historic calendar; the marking of the road, of man’s search for meaning that goes with it and is important. We have to know where the concepts science and meaning come from. They come from ancient Greek language. Both you and Dr. Kanthamani don’t seem to ascribe much validity to this in your discourse. (I would think that it would be wise to find what words, within Indian culture/language are, in fact, the ancient words in Sanskrit for science and meaning and use those to 'bridge' into the Greek words, maybe looking at the commonality - Red.) When we travel the road of the search for meaning, the Latin concept of science (how we understand science today, is translated from the Greek concept) unfolds for us the idea of spaciousness, but hidden in this is the ‘space of meaning’ too, as it has dawned on us from the Greek concept of logos. Logos includes, among others, the semantic categories of being a ‘fundament to depart from’, being a ‘word’ and being ‘knowledge’ itself (‘en arche en ho logos pros ton theon…’ = in the moving beginning there was the word – logos – and it was with God and was God, Greek Christian text), as something organic. A strict view of the process, of the search for meaning, will easily demonstrates that science is merely a Greek word indicating a process to ‘find out what knowledge is and what the meaning of it is re the making of sense to man’. (And culture a German word? The German concept of meaning is something to take heed of – It is bedeutung and means something like ‘pointing with the finger’), As Heidegger has said, "philosophy (from sophos, talking, also Greek) is merely the question of what philosophy is. So it is with science and the philosophy of science (ref. Carl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery). In this, Dr. Kanthamani shows much respect for the Greek origins of the word by observing that the observation of science holds im peto a time marker indicating whether a thing is observed or not (his example of the microscope). Others however, to his observance, may add a comment that has tremendous validity and consequence – Dr. Kanthamani’s remark concerns only the naïve sciences. Naïve sciences, that is, ALL the sciences that we know of, except Quantum physics, that poses that the observed is not observed but changed when it is observed and that if it is observed a second time, it is not the observed again but that it is observed as a new thing; that the previous ‘thing’ has changed into something else. (In Quantum Physics the observed and observer is one and the same thing. Ref. too the analysis of the famous Schrödinger’s Cat that proved that a cat in a box could be alive and dead at the same time – John Gribbin, In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat. Also, the work of Stephen Hawkings that deals with the observed that is about the only observed thing that cannot be observed in our universe (Hawkins & Mlodinow, The Grand Design). And, to use the example of the microscope: When you see a HIV virus under a microscope, it is not the HIV virus that holds the essential for the accumulation of knowledge but the ‘you who see the virus’ is the factor that creates the knowledge of the virus. To Dr. Kanthamani’s argument’s advantage on the other hand others may pose that everything exists whether it is perceived or not and, in fact, exists outside of perception. Their argument is then something like this: As something becomes known/perceived it is never fully known/perceived but always only in part so that there is never full knowledge/perception and it is the perceiver that never fully engages the knowledge of whether there is existence, or not. But as said, we are only concerned with the search for, and of, meaning and the road to it. (Ref: means is message concept of McLuan - Meaning is message and message is meaning on such occasions. Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived, coined this phrase. The method of science influences the observation of its search for meaning. Similar analysis and descriptions concerning the Turinger Machine of Knowledge can be found in Roger Penrose’s The Emperor’s Mind.) Dr. Kanthamani is however right when he challenges your intuition that contestation is part of the verification and annulment method that science employs (the reference to it as consensus). Intuition seems to be a dubious tool and a pre-substitution. But, he is also wrong in his rightness - contestation lies hidden, in the act of asking (observing), of the question itself. When one tries to define science with the use of science, and/or its method (seeking to ‘make alive’ the logos), and is employing the very scientific mean, method (verification and annulment, seeking consensus) and message that is to be observed, one is working with a precarious agenda, a biased one. One IS TRYING to prove the validity of the observed (science) with the knowledge of the observed (science). How can you do that, use scientific method and mean to validate scientific observation? In this case the scientific method proves to have been a snake eating its own tail. The road of seeking knowledge (meaning, sense) is full of snakes, Orobosses (yet another Greek word, circle and from the Myth of the snake eating its own tail). But this now may be exactly that ‘small stone of insight’ that you are looking for - when we deal scientifically with the concept of science, we are already biased and being bitten in the tail … and this is contestation and proof of it. And, like Dr. Kanthamai
, you too were on the right track explaining the following:“…If the scientific progress marks only a difference in the degree of its utility, convenience, cruelty, danger, luxury, profit, welfare, exploitation, etc. we are abound to understand science/scientific truth in terms of its cultural/ideological values”.… Only your argument was wrong. And the argument, whether science has inherent, in its essentiality, contestation and/or whether its method, and the result of validating theory (lab activity) is contestation, is no argument at all. It just is. I refer you once again to what you have called the Christian Myth of Hagar. It’s more of a story though, and it may have some historical and mythical references. The point to it is the metaphoric understanding (intuition?) of the road ahead. (There are personal beliefs in the religious sphere of culture that humanity has imbedded information previous to one's own actual experience that lends itself to an awareness of something without understanding it as experienced knowledge, be it intuition, DNA coding, or information that is 'picked up' from within the womb, or spiritual knowledge that is spiritually discerned by the spirit and not by the mental processes. Arguments supporting this are based on the fact that a child knows to suck or cry and that humans know to seek out water to lessen thirst. Often we refer to this knowledge as "common sense" but yes, it is, a sense of knowledge before the actual experience.) You can find the full story of Hagar’s story in Christian writings (the Old Testament. It is at Genesis 21). The question the surprised angel asked Hagar when she was set to enter the desert with her little baby boy without water, is applicable to the insistence to find answers. ‘Are you really going into the desert with this? With the preparations you have made…?’ (With thanks to EP, USA for editing advice.)
Argo
32).....1. If logos is a word- a word of god- it might be so narrow to look at the creationist origin of language; we must also open to evolution of the language to understand the current level of conceptualisation in science or the science of language as the case may be.
2. If you see HIV under a microscope, 'it is you who sees the virus' is the factor that creates the knowledge of the virus. Yes, It is the knowledge which says: virus = that causes the disease' which is what the scientist holds. Where is the room for subjectivity? So also in microphenomena. Studying these pheneomena does not undermine science. 'The universe is governed by science' (Stephen Hawking).
3. Metascience : We use science to study science. That is we study science as one more natural phenomenon (like speech, language or other psychological traits). We include science also into the list of science. We study science as it is being pursued and practiced by a scientist (a microbilogist who studies protenis and enzymes). What exactly he does when he practices it? To what end? What knowledge he generates? It is as much 'biased' as any other pursuit is. But it can be considered as far superior when you know how to overcome the bias.
A.Kanthamani.
33.....I do not think it is possible to find a linearity of the roads to meaning of science. are we really concerned about a possible essence of culture and science? History of them appears to be essentialist one. It is against such an essentialist meaning of science the question of contestation comes up. The projected meaning of science appears to be very much ethnocentric, and so exclusivist. It starts its war against what is termed as primitive. Science is essentialized on the basis of certain binaries. If we forgo naive idea of science, it would be possible to have an interesting history of science which gets assimilated into so-called non-science or superstitions.
sasi
34).... Prof. Kanthamani seems to look at the contestation of science through the binary between ideology and science (ideology vs. science, science vs. culture), and thus, he prioritizes science of over ideology. He thinks that laboratory is devoid of ideology. Even the very establishment of laboratory is an ideological out come. It is not an innocent of power, ideology, etc. Both the scientific truth and ideological value are discursively created. No scientific truth can be value neutral. Even the opposition between the ideological value and scientific truth is discursively created.
S.Raju
35).... You are right to 'raise their (healers') efficiency from the point of their potentials for a more healthy-life care practice'. This is what exactly I mean. But you take back the point by saying 'how they are experienced by people'. You should mean that they (the healers' efficiency) are experienced for the good. Again, you agree that 'you do not want to present them as such efficient in their principle, method, operational/institutional arrangements for care-giving (trauma care, crisis management) etc., as they are achieved by the present-day modern system'. I call this as science: no one can agree unless it reaches some optimal standards of scientific respectability: you call this as 'achievements to that level are due to the well-organised policies and prgrammes'. You are right. Your parenthesis mention 'through organised research activities and development schemes': This is what one looks for when he talks of scientific standards. This is achieved through objective empirical research and good planning. So this is what the healers are expected to do. You missed the authenticity of the remark ('no one has proved their efficiency') which I almost quote from a visiting medical expert and it is from the Indian media. It may not be as authentic as one would like to be. But no one disputed this so far. So there is no campaign against healers but only a campaign for science (Dawkins). No one is against 'allowing them to sustain, enriching, and even develop them in their own ways and means', and no one says that you should bring them under western systems, but the question is whether there is normative scientific method with which they work to command scientific respectability. This is the demand for objective standards and not from a subjective point of view. No one discriminates against them. In fact the prevalent view of integrated medicine tries to absorb as much of this into the current medical science (this is socially needed, especially in old age care), but it is strange that you feel that the healers' are 'challenged'. They are challenged only when there are no objective standards in their methods of healing on the specific grounds they are populist which might mislead or deceive the public. You cannot prevent any local quack doctor imitating the medical personnel and administering medicine to the gullible public. How do you make people understand that they are cheated except through the prevailing standards of medical science? Any science must be subjected to scientific questioning, and they are hardly ideologically motivated. I do not need the binary model since I have not denied the marketing which is done by people who want to make commercial gain. If we are innocent, we will be forced to compromise. Escaping from the ideological thrust requires that you keep your science as perfect and workable as possible. You follow objective standards. Any new drug for cancer must be validated by our scientific group. If you do not have such a community of scientists, then you are open to the risk. But even here people make all kinds of charges without sometimes knowing the real worth of the drug or even so, merely disagreeing that it is marketed by western capitalists, but the way is absolutely open to validate it exclusively through scientific means. We need more science to correctly understand western science to save us from any impending risks. But this looks like an ideal in the currently prevailing medical science in our country. This is the real dilemma Indians face. We must learn the art of western science from whatever quarters they come from and at the same time we should not hesitate to overthrow them using the same weapon. But if you claim that we have our standards then that will defeat yours and also claim that hence we are far superior, and then we are sinking our own boats. We fight science with science. This is what science teaches. Science has standards as it prevails in the current practice. One has to prove that they are not real standards but that can be archived only by better science. It is not fought on ideological grounds or self-imposed pride. Our culture is open to evaluation as much as any other culture is. So we are open towards each culture and takes things on merit. This requires that we move or better transcend one's own culture to the culture of others. This is a form of Kulturpolitisch.
A. Kanthamani
36)….Yes, my remarks on traditional healers’ efficiency might look contradictory. Their efficiency in delivering health in many cases does not mean they are good in all. People are very much felt by their relative goodness. That is why they continue to thrive in proportion to the growth in the delivery of unhealthy results or cruelty by the scientifically (technologically/administratively) advanced systems. They are rather promoted or justified by the ill-effects of the formal scientific know-how, instead of a forthright appreciation. The idea of science has been put in the service of an oppressive regime, to disqualify what is healthy. Are health sciences (including policies and programmes) as healthy as they are supposed to be? This requires to be traced first, on the basis of historical track records; before we keep going with ‘haley luyya’ for the idea of science as an ideological framework for excluding whatever is found healthier. Hence, efficiency in terms of health has to be a real concern. Traditional healers’ efficiency need not be validated on account of being science or not science. Technological advancement in medical care in the name of science, the modernizing therapy project tends to get undermine the role of socio-cultural (environmental, psychic) factors in unhealthing and healthing the human life. The goal to reach ‘some optimal standards of scientific respectability’ seems to set a different orientation, from the traditional altogether, to the process of diagnosis and prognosis by precluding a methodology for accounting the unpredictable correlations in the socio-biotic dynamics of life. The result of an inappropriate diagnosis and prognosis is nothing but a therapeutic crime. Due to the minimal healer-patient interface in the technologised therapy, there is only much less scope for capturing the individual cases of aberrations from the standard.
sasi
37)…Your questions motivate me further to consider my understanding of science in various other ways. Science may be culture-bound if it is understood as a by-product of one's own culture. You may look Indian science as product of our civilization. Or, Western science is product of developed socities. It may also be culture-free in that scientific norms do not belong to one's own culture because such objective standards can be practiced by more than one civilization. The practices of marma shikisha can be incorporated into modern medicine if one knows how to develop this into objective instruments. It is true that scientific findings are triggered off by the cultural surround- my peer in philosophy department is a scientist but it is not guided by cultural situatedness. My culture does not guide me to become a scientist. I do a lot of reading in cognitive science but it is not coming from any Indian source. It is mostly from my association with west. I do not follow just becaue it is coming from the west. I know how to question many of them. When the west gives us science, they also give us an instrument to question their own scientific credentials. We don't follow them blindly. World war can use nuclear energy but that is not the purpose for which it is meant. It might be rated as an abuse of science. War with the pests is motivated more to produce large-scale to cater to the larger population. It might carry commercial implication: but science does not tell you only to produce more. It rather prescribes a method. You can use it judiciously or otherwise. It depends on one's own choice. When you are found using otherwise, the laws of the land should normally put them under question. Supposing the laws of the land are weak and the people are corrupt. One must allow the judiciary to function. This is how law affects science. Sometimes one cannot know how to judege bio-technically produced varieties of cotton or vegetables under lab conditions. The issue is to be addressed by science. Science is not a free endeavour. It prescribes objective standards for cross verification and experimental duplication. If they fail, repeat the procedures before deciding whether it is science or not. Science cannot be allowed to take ideologically laid trajectory. What is relevant in research is to be decided by what is relevant to society. Market intervenes only when the product can be used to deceive certain sectors of the population. The possibility of resisting this rests with the local scientists. If the local scientific community cannot decide or under pressure to use it for other ends, so much is indicative of the lack of local talent. We are educated but not educated enough. Scientists are not truth-telling angels but they have to be cross-verifiedd by science. Are they telling lies? Science should teach you to know. Science cannot claim monopoly on truth. It is open for other enquirers to know. If someone calls something as unscientific, the truth will come out if you apply objective verification. It can be assessed only by science. There are other sciences, not other perspectives. Science claims to be objective. We must oversee whether it can deliver. But it can also be abused in which case one ought to maintain a vigil. Governments can be coaxed to buy nuclear energy but whether you choose to buy or not must be made by the correct application of science. When people all over the world debate about the use of nuclear energy after Chernobyl and Fukushima, if Indians prefer to use it (why prefer when other may not?) with adequate safety measures (do we have?), it is for the scientific community to enquire and suggest ways. There may be correct or incorrect decisions, but one should try to determine the truth in the light of prevailing conditions in our society. So science is to be embedded to the requirements of the society. Such requirements may not all be decided in one shot. When political decisions are taken for science, it is open for the scientist to protest. The relation between science and society must be carefully watched. You can question science if you have better objective standards. How otherwise you will convince me? I do not know whether my competence in science is adequate but for this you learn more science. Controversies always remain. One should know how to address them. With all best wishes for more questions.
A. Kanthamani
38)…There are questions arising while we start a dialogue over the subject. One is, as populist saying "exploitation" in the name of preventive medication and in treatment cannot be easily undertaken in academic forum like ours. It will be irresponsible to criticise medical science without sufficient know how in human physiology and scientific researches. There may be individuals who utilize their medical qualifications and occupation to earn money without upholding medical ethics. But taking health practices now prevailing a totally and basically wrong concept is another wiseless criticism.
As sociological practitioners we can find malpractices in practicing medical science, with the aim of earning more money especially in the existing education system, inwhich, degrees being "purchased" from medical colleges run by corporate educational institutions in the self financing sector.
But by that we cannot ignore the basic assumption of medical science. To problematise the subject or to hold philosophical dialogue, we can go for the capitalist social set-up and it's exploitation attitude that exist in medical practice, just like all the other faces of social living.
Any theory if sticked upon even finding irrational experiences may end up in fundamentalism and this principle also applicable in Science. Simply saying, "seeing too much science" in science is also fundamentalism. We cannot find the end point of human history and future even if we are thinking scientifically.The concept regarding it can be that, we can define future only up to a certain point, at which length of time, human being have found scientific instruments of thinking and practicing and they also have their own limitations. Prediction in social science is also limited by the reality of our positioning in time and history. The dialectics of a classless society can be thought of only when we are there, in practice.
Likewise, natural sciences also can predict only up to certain point. The question of 'what is beyond' can be dealt with only when we are advancing further. So medical science also have got limitations.
Now, how to heal? This is purely a sociological, ideological and belief based approach. To get healed, the individual or the community too have to believe in the technology of healing. There may be psychologists who heal personally through cancelling, religious gurus who heal the mass, and also politicians. The worth of healing cannot be side-lined, but their should be sufficient background examples as proven realities.
S. Haridas
39)....can 'non-ideological' pure truth can ever be achieved----? historically has it ever been achieved? Science uses numbers and language- both these things are cultural constructs-- and hence embedded with ideologies that make those cultures.... 'lived world' too is not free from 'ideology'. It is thickly intertwined with ideologies that produce whatsoever the lived world. Where is the escape?
P. Madhu.
40)…Dr. Madhu poses a most interesting query concerning possible underlying ideologies within cultural constructs that may appear as a priori clumps of contestant and inherent contamination of the purity of truth/s. A systematic approach and re-definition of the concepts used to deal with the issue and that has vital bearing in the search for meaning may provide a larger perspective and make the road to be traveled more visible - conceptional language analysis. The concept 'non-ideological pure truth’ holds a description im peto of truth may be, or should be, namely ‘non-ideological’. That is an a priori to ‘truth’ ( "a priori" to truth would be the time/experience before truth. If such time/experience were to occur it would have to occur with a lie because anything devoid of truth defaults to being a lie.) and in its essence the concept is already ideological in its re-definition of the truth. The answer to the question he posses cannot be answered with a yes or a no. One can only conclude it is merely a meaningless concept and contaminated with the contradictory nature. The truth negates a lie and a lie negates truth. It describes a ‘road’ not really worth following in the pursuit of meaning. Whether it has been ‘historically achieved’ is a concept dealing with a totally different category of semantics.Any time a lie exists, the truth cannot be found there, and anytime the truth exists, no lie can abide. Here the answer may however be yes or no. There’s a strong argument that it may be ‘yes’ (apart from the fact that Wittgenstein has answered it with a ‘yes’ in the beginning of the 20th Century) and the roots of it can lie in the acceptance of the previous conclusion that 'non-ideological pure truth’ is a meaningless concept hindering the proceedings on the road and quest for meaning and sense. It may be a ‘truth’ that is truly truthful and without any bias that 'non-ideological pure truth’ is meaningless. 'Non-ideological pure truth' is a construct and can never exist as a truth because it was borne out of ideology, So it IS possible that 'non-ideological pure truth’ can be achieved historically. The historical point is now. Maybe the same can be reasoned with the sentence ‘cultural constructs-- and hence embedded with ideologies that make those cultures’(Humanity gives value to "culture"....it's just what a group/set of humans establish as terms of agreement for a specific period of time and is never static but always in a state of flux and influenced by everything such that it's never REALLY defined but overlaps with other sets of "culture" adfinium. This then may be the ‘escape’ from the debris cluttering the road to meaning. But then one has to find out first whether 'science numbers' and language are indeed cultural constructs. Whether the tool of language constructed by culture or is culture a wild growth, something like a fungus, around language is to be decided first, Did culture bring forth language or did language provided the fragile test tube for the culture to originate in?
What are words? One can reason that words are sounds that enable one or more beings to communicate amongst themselves but originally words were used by God to create with and then they were used between man and God to communicate and then they were used by men to bring into affect an order of cohabitation between man and his environment. God told man to use his words to name all the animals. So, the first job of words are communicating and naming/identifying coherently. But are words they ‘things’ (material realities) as well, such as the poet Lord Byron (and I) believed although nor he nor I has found any proof of? The word Logos (God, knowledge, essence) … isn’t it God itself? And the word chair? Isn’t a chair ‘there’ when you name it? And culture, where is it? These questions have some meaning but do they refer to constructs? Intertwined ideologies with constructs, are they? It seems the meaning of the questions in the quest for sense themselves are the escape. Could that be a truth and then actually a lie?
Argo Spier
41)…..Thanks for the nice question: 'can non-ideological pure truth ever be achieved?'. Broadly yes. All synthetic statements which have gone to make up scientific theory which made possible rapid progress of science in the last two centuries shows that we make empirical claims about the world however much they wait for revision by the future growth of science. I hope this answers your second question about whether 'historically they have been achieved'. This much every scientist agrees; I agree with them. I can say without mixing it up with ideology. That is a separate question. You can wear blinkers and say that the best breakfast you eat in the in the best restaurant in the town is 'ideologically tainted'. It is the way you look at it. I look at science as science. Whether it is 'embedded with ideologies' can still be decided if you know how to apply the norms of science. Thus you can separate the wheat from the chaff. As you say, it looks as if the 'Lived world is also not free from ideology', but this is a matter of choice. The world I live has an omnipotent person god but that does not deter me from knowing whether his presence can be known by the prevalent standards of science. Just think of the God-particle. Such a particle may exist if it can be duplicated in a lab. That much standard we have in science. But we are yet to register success. The carved path of query is not tainted by any idelogy whatever. So whatever looks like 'thickly intertwined with science' must be tackled by science in the final run. Those who cannot tackle them cannot 'escape' the grip of ideology. Science can deliver us from ideology. You can correct any ideology by the norms that prevail in science. You can correct ideology with science, but you cannot correct science with your ideology. Science goes on the march irrespective of whether anyone wants to stop it or not. Ideologies can wither; science does not. You are worried about 'pure' truth. When you say that 'The cat is on the mat' you can know that it is an empirical statement about the cat and the mat. You can kick the cat to know whether it is reaaly sitting on the mat or on the earth. You don't look for pure truths here which you are unlikely to get anywhere. No scientist has ever claimed that he has achieved a 'pure' truth. I'm composing this letter (non-ideologically) and press the 'send' (non-ideologically, again). Presto, it e-mails my message to you without any ideological taint! That must science can do; it can still do better- making it faster. You never disown your mob saying it is ideologically tainted. Mob is a science gadget, only after putting it down you can talk about ideology. The cancer drug our doctors import may be ideologically tainted. That does not the research that has gone into making the drug is tainted by ideology. The nuclear power you use for electricity may not be safe, but that does not warrant that the entire research must be put an end to. You can however stop it when you know how to find alternative energies. That will nullify the research that we have done already. If it does not serve the purpose we can disband it, but ensure that your ideology does not taint it.
A. Kanthamani
42)….Aren't scientific representations merely our effort of what we see from our cultural situatedness? Isn't that Newton's physics presuppose culturally given external creator- the God. Isn't it the efforts of the freethinkers could break ground for Einstein to go beyond the necessity of such an external creator-animator. Isn't it the trajectory of scientific findings is guided by socio-cultutal-political situatedness. For instance nuclear physics gained momentum in world war environment. Likewise, pesticides in agriculture are born in the world war environment. Ideologies of 'survival of the fittest' were at the background motivating people to use and produce pesticide. War with the 'pests' is culturally ingrained ideology. The agricultural university people were eradicating locally bread cows and other cattle guided by milk productivity.... etc--- instead introduced now kinds of cows! There are diseases specific to urban area and medicines prescribed for such urban diseases. Isn't the 'urban diseases' and its management a cultural phenomenon? It was a culture prevalent within the scientific field forbidden scientists to look beyond anti-biotics to control 'Scurvy', while natives of america were prescribing vitamin c rich fruits for the travelers from the scientifically then advanced Briton. Marma vaidyam proceeds with very different premise than neurology or orthopedics and cure certain diseases like tennis elbow, migraine, spinal pain, knee pain etc. The experts in marma field very easily cure these diseases. Is it that only the 'orthopedics' and 'neurology' as it is established today is science? Within the culture of orthopedics they have no place to accommodate premise of marma even when marma works. Is science really a free endeavor? Science, especially medical science is bound to the 'intellectual property right' related legalities. Is n't it the leagl atmosphere affect science and its trajectory? When more funding is available for one type of research than other, the one gets funding and it paves the trajectory for future sciences! Is it not a ideologically laid trajectory the science often takes. Persons working in fundamental mathematics/science receive less support unless what they study is relevant for the market. Isn't market decides the path of science? does it not shape scientists to choose one problem rather than the other?'Objective' instruments of science, its seems to me, proportional to their degree of objectivity they were subjected to cultural pressures. The argument is not that formal and institutional science should be stopped because it is polluted by ideology. However, the strength of the formal scientific institutions and their monopoly claims on truths are not so much truth statements as they claim. What they declare as unscientific is often biased. There are other sciences. There are other perspectives. Science's monopoly over truth is questionable. Science has a limited scope in the field of understanding. With that little scope it is nowhere near to claim monopoly or a totalitarian authority.
P. Madhu
43)……Is not much of the confusions in the debate on account of the clubbing of two different concepts with different attributes as one and trying to fit the combined complex under the jacket of one of the concepts?
Science and Technology are two different concepts. They correspond to "shaastra" and "shastra" in Sanskrit. Having two words for the two concepts in English suggests that even in Latin there must be corresponding differentiation. The directions in which technologies develop is indeed affected by ideologies and is culture bound. That is why technology developed in one country for their needs do not work well in other countries without appropriate adaptations. Incorrect application of technology can lead to the "therapeutic violence" which you were mentioning in one of your responses. Dropping of nuclear bombs in Japan was an act of "therapeutic violence". But this violence is not characteristic of the west. The practice of "sati" in the Indian society was also an act of "therapeutic violence". The extension of the principle of "chaturvarnya" to the development of a caste system was another act of "therapeutic violence". All these were results of incorrect applications of science. If we identify these problems with science it will not be possible to remain focussed on the need for the regulation of technology development. Then instead of reforming the constitution to accommodate a new discovery we shall be striving to maintain the homeostasis by burning the scientist at the stake. Or we shall opt to burn a widow instead of helping her to find her moorings in life.
Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal was the single institution identified with the renaissance of Ayur Veda in Kerala. Its founder PS Warrier, had studied Physiology and Anatomy from a British Physician. The photograph of the physician occupies a prominent place in the drawing room of the ancestral home still preserved by the descendants of Shri PS Warrier. And the biographers of PS Warrier say that till the end he looked upon the British Physician as one of his Gurus. The divisions occur only at the plane of technology.
Science is not divisive. The divisions occur only at the plane of technology. Why should we call technology as science?
A V G Warrier
44)…Both P Madhu and A.Kanthamani are using the term Science in an abstract manner. We cannot limit science as the activities of scientists alone. And this is a recent development. Pure science cannot now exist as it is. Engineering and technology cannot be now seen departed from science. Where as ideology can exist in a scientifically non advanced society too. Just like this, ideology also cannot exist as such departed from politics. Whatever ideological give and take is there between person and person and claim of non - politics in it, nothing happens in the society. The question is of purpose meeting. There should be some materialist advantage for it. Both the participants here referred choose the language of philosophy for their communication. Philosophy being called the science of sciences, why they are not paying attention to the current scientific developments? According to me, the academic philosophers should attend to the advanced science and the crisis ridden within it. The major thrust of popular discussion about science is now concentrated in the environmental crisis. The ozone layer, nuclear energy disputes, pollution, unemployment, nuclear war etc. are being discussed among them. Of course there are political obligations and partisan view also. Here philosophers cannot be keep blind to these serious matters while addressing crisis of philosophy.
A.S.Haridas.
45)…. It seems to me that ideological presuppositions and cultural prejudices and our sense limitations exist and hence all that is claimed as scientific truth are historically contingent cultural constructs taken to be truth because they could be situated within our existing perceptions and our sense-limited experiences. Every thing ‘objective’ thus is ‘objective’ only within a cultural and sense-perception context- and hence primarily subjective (i.e. historically contingent subjectivity).
Health when seen from good/bad microbes and targeting the bad microbes, then we unintentionally follow Christian epistemology of God/Satan duality. We may correct latter, but this starting point is problematic – as the following logics are built upon them. Numbers when digitised we lose continuum. Numbers when make us aware of the counted, the uncounted and yet to be counted escapes our attention. What one culture knows in the networks of knowledge making is different from that of others. All these have serious implications in the production of knowledge even at its at most systematic practice. What we call systematic is using instruments like numbers, experiment results, language and models. These basic things are not so ‘objective’ as they are claimed to be. Said things are lies if we consider the worth of unsaid. ‘Sun rising in the east’ becomes a lie once we get the larger picture.
scientific objectivity is not equivalent to non-biased explanation of truth or reality as it is. Science is just what the scientific method gives us. Or Science is what scientists do. That is far removed from any truth claim.
Language as grammar, meaning, semantics and semiotics are human effort to abbreviate and systematize their experience. It is an instrument. As in the case of other instrumentalities- language guides and misguides. It abbreviate an experience and standardize- then language take over the way we experience. Just the grammatical necessity of first-person singular or possessive pronouns are enough to create ‘souls’ and ‘selves’ irrespective of their actual existence. There are plenty of words for non-existing entities in our network of meaning making. Science being an objective truth revealers independent of historical, cultural, linguistic and our sense perception contexts is impossible. It can only be a culturally constrained endeavour however rigorous its practice could be. Numbers and ideology built in numbers let the numbers to construct their reality. The numbering system from infinity- to zero-to infinity with continuous and discontinuous fractions and decimals are not truth instruments- rather cultural constructs. Duality, multiplicity, identity, individuality, component, whole etc... are not descriptions of reality, rather they are culturally contingent constructions.
P. Madhu.
