MODULE WEEK NO.

1
TAGOLOAN Community College
Baluarte, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental
Tel.No. (08822)740-835/(088)5671-215

College of Arts & Sciences

GEE 4: Living in the Information Technology Era
1st Semester of A.Y. 2022-2023

“HUMAN FLOURISHING”

Introduction

This module discusses human flourishing as defined as being “good spirited” in the classical Aristotelian
notion. Humans generally have a notion on what it means to flourish; albeit in the advent of science and
technology, they chose to hinge their ends alongside the latter’s results. While it is true that science
equips its knowers some details about the world, its main claim to objectivity and systematic
methodology is at the very least flawed. However, that does not stop institutions to favor those who
COURSE MODULE

excel in said discipline. Finally, the economic perception of enrichment, otherwise known as growth, is
heavily fueled by technology and should be impeded. We have to rethink of our perception of a good life
apart from one presented in this regard.

Rationale

The understanding of human flourishing to partake the greater notion of what we call the Good of human
being.

Intended Learning Outcomes

A. Identify different conceptions of human flourishing;

B. Determine the development of the scientific method and validity of science; and
C. Critic human flourishing vis-à-vis progress of science and technology to be able to define for
themselves the meaning of a good life.

Level of Learning
 MODULE WEEK NO.1

The Human Flourishing

Discussion

Background
COURSE MODULE

Eudaimonia, literally “good spirited,” is a term coined by renowned Greek Philosopher Aristotle
(385-323 BC) to describe the pinnacle of happiness that is attainable by humans. This has often been
translated into “human flourishing” in literature, arguably likening humans to flowers achieving their full
bloom. As discussed in the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s human flourishing arises as a result of different
components such as phronesis, friendship, wealth, and power. In the Ancient Greek society, they believe that
acquiring these qualities will surely bring the seekers happiness, which in effect allows them to partake in the
greater notion of what we call the Good.

EUDAIMONIA
“good spirited”

Aristotle (385-323 BC)

As times change, elements that comprise human flourishing changed, which are subject to the dynamic
social history as written by humans. People found means to live more comfortably, explore more places,
develop more products, and make more money, and then repeating the process in full circle. In the beginning,
early people relied on simple machines to make hunting and gathering easier. This development allowed
them to make grander and more sophisticated machines to aid them in their endeavors that eventually led to
space explorations, medicine innovations, and ventures of life after death. Our concept of human flourishing
today proves to be different from what Aristotle originally perceived then—humans of today are expected to
become a “man of the world.” He is supposed to situate himself in a global neighborhood, working side by
side among institution and the government to be able to reach a common goal. Competition as a means of
survival has become passé; coordination is the new trend.
Interestingly, there exists a discrepancy between eastern and western conception regarding society and
human flourishing. It has been observed that western civilization tends to be more focused on the individual,
while those from the east are more community-centric. Human flourishing as an end then is primarily more of
a concern for western civilizations over eastern ones. This is not to discredit our kinsfolk from the east;
 MODULE WEEK NO.1
perhaps in their view, community takes the highest regard that the individual should sacrifice himself for the
sake of the society. This is apparent in the Chinese Confucian system or the Japanese Bushido, both of which
view the whole as greater than their components. The Chinese and Japanese encourage studies of literature,
sciences, and art, not entirely for oneself but in service of a greater cause. The Greek Aristotelian view, on
the other hand, aims for eudaimonia as the ultimate good, there is no indication whatsoever that Aristotle
entailed it instrumental to achieve some other goals. Perhaps, a person who has achieved such state would
want to serve the community, but that is brought upon through deliberation based on the values rather that his
belief that the state is greater than him, and thus, is only appropriate that he should recognize it as a higher
entity worthy of service.
Nevertheless, such stereotypes cannot be said to be true given the current stance of globalization.
Flourishing borders allowed people full access to cultures that as a result, very few are able to maintain their
original philosophies. It is in this regard that we would tackle human flourishing in a global perspective and
as a man of the world.

Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing

In the previous chapters, contribution of science and technology have been laid down throroughly.
Every discovery, innovation, and success contributes to our pool of human knowledge. Perhaps, one of the
COURSE MODULE

most prevalent themes is human’s perpetual need to locate himself in the world by finding proofs to trace
evolution. The business of uncovering the secrets of the universe answer the question of our existence and
provides us something to look forward to. Having a particular role, which is uniquely ours, elicits our idea of
self-importance. It is in this regard that human flourishing is deeply intertwined with goal setting relevant to
science and technology. In this case, the latter is relevant as a tool in achieving the former or echoing
Heidegger’s statement, technology is a human activity that we excel in as a result of achieving science.
Suffice to say that the end goals of both science and technology and human flourishing are related, in that the
good is inherently related to the truth. The following are two concepts about science which ventures its claim
on truth.

Science as Method and Results

For the most part, sciences refutation stems from the objectivity brought upon by an arbitrary, rigid
methodology whose very character absolves it from any accusation of prejudice. Such infamy effectively
raised science in a pedestal untouchable by other institutions – its sole claim to reason and empiricism –
garnering supporters who want to defend it and its ways.
In school, the scientific method is introduced in the earlier part of discussions. Even though the number
of steps varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:
1. Observe and determine if there are unexplained occurrences unfolding.
2. Determine the problem and identify factors involved.
3. Through past knowledge of similar instance, formulate hypothesis that could explain the said
phenomena. Ideally, the goal is to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis
for the study “to count as significant” (can also be separated into additional steps such as “to generate
prediction” or “to infer from past experience”).
4. Conduct experiment by setting up dependent and independent variables, and trying to see how
independent ones affect dependent ones.
5. Gather and analyze results throughout and upon culmination of the experiment. Examined if the
data gathered are significant enough to conclude results.
6. Formulate conclusion and provide recommendation in case others would want to broaden the
study.

At least in the students’ formative years, the above routine is basic methodology when introducing
them to experimentation and empiricism – two distinct features that give science edge over other schools of
 MODULE WEEK NO.1
thought. Throughout the course of history, however, there exists heavy objections on the scientific procedure;
the line separating science and the so-called pseudoscience becomes more muddled.

Verification Theory

The earliest criterion that distinguishes philosophy and science is verification theory. The idea proposes
that a discipline is science if it can be confirmed or interpreted in the event of an alternative hypothesis being
accepted. In that regard, said theory gives premium to empiricism and only takes into account those results
which are measurable and experiments which are repeatable. This was espoused by a movement in the early
twentieth century called the Vienna Circle, a group of scholars who believed that only those which can be
observed should be regarded as meaningful and reject those which cannot be directly accessed as
meaningless. Initially, this proved to be attractive due to general consensus from people, which happened to
see for themselves how the experiment occurred, solidifying its validity and gathering supporters from
esteemed figures. Its shortcomings, however, proved to be a somewhat too risky – several budding theories
that lack empirical results might be shut down prematurely, causing slower innovation and punishing
ingenuity of newer, novel thoughts. Celebrated discoveries in physics, for instance, are initially theorized
without proper acknowledgment of their being. Einstein’s theory on the existence of gravitational waves
would, following this thought, be dismissed due to lack of evidence almost a hundred years ago. Quantum
mechanics would not have prospered if the scientific society during the time of Edwin Schodinger did not
COURSE MODULE

entertain his outrageous thought that the cat in the box is both dead and alive, which can only be determined
once you look in the box yourself.

Aside from above critique, this theory completely fails to weed out bogus arguments that explain things
coincidentally. A classic example is astrology, whose followers are able to employ the verification method in
ascertaining its reliability. The idea is that since one already has some sort of expectations. American
philosopher Thomas Kuhn warned us against bridging the gap between evidence and theory by attempting to
interpret the former according to our own biases, that is, whether or not we subscribe to the theory. Below is
a short story illustrating this point:

Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a (not-so-scientific) theory that her classmate Ian likes her.
Good, she thought, I like him now. But how do I Know that he likes me?

She began by observing him and his interactions with her. Several gestures she noted include his
always exchanging pleasantries with her whenever they bump into each other, his big smile when he sees
her, and him going out his way to greet her even when riding a jeepney. Through these observations, she
was then able to conclude that Ian does like her because she thought, why would anyone do something
like that for a person he does not like?

As it turns out, however, Ian is just generally happy to meet people he knew. He had known Lea
since they were in first year and regards her as a generally okay person. It is no surprise then that upon
learning that Ian basically does this to everyone, Lea was crushed. She vowed to herself that she would
never assume again.

Based from above story, is it justified for Lea to think that Ian does not like her? Not quite. The next
criterion also warns us about the danger of this view.

Falsification Theory

Perhaps the current prevalent methodology in science, falsification theory asserts that as long as an ideology
is not proven to be false and can be best explain a phenomenon over alternative theories, we should accept
the said ideology. Due to its hospitable character, the shift to this theory allowed emergence of theories
otherwise rejected by verification theory. It does not promote ultimate adoption of one theory but instead
 MODULE WEEK NO.1
encourages research in order to determine which among the theories can stand the test of falsification.

The strongest one is that which is able to remain uphold

amidst various tests, while being able to make particularly
risky predictions about the world. Karl Popper is the known
proponent of this view. He was notorious for stating that up-
and-coming theories of time, such as Marx’s Theory of
Social History and Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalysis, are not
testable and thus not falsifable, and subsequently
questioning their status as scientific. Albeit majority of
scientists nowadays are more inclined to be Popperian in their beliefs, this theory, similar to the theory above,
presents certain dangers by interpreting an otherwise independent evidence in light of their pet theory.

To illustrate, previous story is restated:

Ian is generally everybody’s friend. He likes to be around people and generally aspires to become
everybody’s friend. However, there is this one girl, Lea, who seemed to not like him when he is around.
Every time he waves at her, she turns away, and when they are in the same room, she avoids his glances.
Through this, he concluded that Lea does not like him and does his best to show her that he is not a threat.
He began greeting her whenever they pass by each other at the corridor, even going so far as calling her
COURSE MODULE

attention when he was in the jeepney and saw her walking past. When they are able to talk to each other,
he found out that Lea is just really shy and is not accustomed to people greeting her. He then was able to
conclude that his initial impression of her not liking him (as a person) is wrong and thus said proposition
is rejected.

Although there is no happy ending yet for Lea and Ian, we can thus see how in this case, falsification
method is prone to the same generalizations committed by the verification method. There is no known rule as
to the number of instance that a theory is rejected or falsified in order for it to be set aside. Similarly, there is
no assurance that observable event or “evidences” are indeed manifestation of a certain concept or “theories.”
Thus, even though, theoretically, falsification method is more accepted, scientists are still not convinced that
it should be regarded as what makes a discipline scientific.

Science as a Social Endeavor

Due to inconclusiveness of the methodologies previously cited, a new school of thought on the proper
demarcation criterion of science emerged. Several philosophers such as Paul Thagard, Imre Lakatos, Helen
Longino, David Bloor, and Richard Rorty, among others, presented an alternative demarcation that explores
the social dimension of science and effectively, technology. Sciences cease to belong solely to gown-
wearing, bespectacled scientists at laboratories. The new view perpetuates a dimension which generally
benefits the society. For instance, far-off places in South America where many of the tribes remain
uncontacted do not regard western science as their science. Whatever their science is, it can be ascertained
that it is in no way inferior in that of globalized peoples’ science. Thus, it presents an alternative notion that
goes beyond the boundaries of cold, hard facts of science and instead projects it in a different light, such as a
manifestation of shared experience forging solidarity over communities.

Science and Results

For the most part, people who do not understand science are won over when the discipline is able to
produce results. Similar to when Jesus performed miracles and garnered followers, people are sold over the
capacity of science to do stuff they cannot fully comprehend. In this particular argument, however, science is
not the only discipline which is able to produce results – religion, luck, and human randomness are some of
its contemporaries in the field. For some communities without access to science, they can turn to divination
and superstition and still get the same results. Science is not entirely foolproof, such that it is correct 100% of
 MODULE WEEK NO.1
the time. Weather reports, for one, illustrate fallibility and limitations of their scope, as well as their inability
to predict disasters. The best that can be done during an upcoming disaster is to reinforce materials to be
more calamity proof and restore the area upon impact. It can be then concluded that science does not
monopolize the claim for definite results.

Science as Education

Aforementioned discussion notes that there is no such thing as a singular scientific method, offering
instead a variety of procedures that scientists can experiment with to get results and call them science.
Discoveries in physics, specifically in quantum mechanics, appeared to have debunked the idea of objectivity
as reality, subscribing instead to alternative idea called intersubjectivity. With objectivity gone, it has lost its
number one credence. Nevertheless, there still exists a repressing concept that comes about as a result of
unjustified irreverence of science – our preference of science-inclined students over those which are less
adept. There are distinct portions in entrance exams in the secondary and tertiary levels that are dedicated to
science and mathematics. In the Philippines, a large distribution of science high schools can be found all over
the country, forging competition for aspiring students to secure a slot and undergo rigorous science and
mathematics training based on specialized curricula. Although arguable as these schools also take great
consideration in providing holistic education by assuring that other non-science courses are covered,
adeptness in science and mathematics are the primary condition to be admitted. This preference is also
COURSE MODULE

reflected on the amount of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-offering schools

accommodating Grades 11 and 12. Among all the clusters in terms of popularity and distribution, with
Accounting and Business coming in as a close second. One might infer that there are more demand in this
field as students are preconditioned that the field would latter land them high-paying jobs and a lucrative
career after graduation.

How is science perceived by those who graduated from this field? A couple of years ago, a student
entered a class all curious and excited. When he was made to report on Paul Feyerabend’s work How to
Defend Society Against Science one day, he looked dissident, staunchly refusing to consider the author’s
ideas on science and critiquing him instead. When asked why, he reasoned out that he had come from a
science high school and was trained to regard science in a distinct accord. As isolated a case as it may seem,
it somewhat suggests that the aforementioned kind of academic environment has mad the students
unwelcoming of objection against science. Reminiscent of Paul Feyerabends’ sentiment above, he muses how
the educational system can hone and preserve students’ capacity to entertain other options and decide for
themselves the best among all presented. It will thus reinforce their imagination and allow some level of
unorthodoxy, bringing forth novel discoveries that otherwise would not be considered had they stuck to the
default methodology. Innovations are brought forth by the visionaries, not the prude legalists, and several
notable figures in science even consider themselves as outsiders.

If one is really in pursuit of human flourishing, it would make sense for them to pursue it holistically.
Simply mastering science and technology would be inadequate if we are to say, socialize with people or
ruminate on our inner self. Aristotle’s eudaimonic person is required to be knowledgeable about science,
among other things of equal importance. They are supposed to possess intellectual virtues that will enable
them to determine truth from falsehood or good reasoning from poor reasoning. A true eudaimon recognizes
that flourishing requires one to excel in various dimensions, such as linguistic, kinetic, artistic, and socio-
civic. Thus, he understands that he should not focus on one aspect alone.

How Much Is Too Much?

In 2000, world leaders signed the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that targets eight concerns,
one of which states that they should be able to forge a global partnership for development. In as much as the
institutes imposing them do so in good faith, the primary goal to achieve growth for all might prove to be
fatal in the long run.
 MODULE WEEK NO.1

Economists believe that growth is the primary indicator of development, as both go hand in hand, and
has put forth their resources in trying to achieve such. Technology has been a primary instrument in enabling
them to pursue said goal, utilizing resources, machineries, and labor. What is missing in this equation is that
growth presents an illusory notion of sustainability—the world’s resources can only provide so much, it
cannot be expected to stretch out for everybody’s consumption over a long period of time. Moreover, growth
is not infinite—there is no preordained ceiling once the ball starts rolling. If the MDG convention’s intent
was to get everyone in the growth ship, that ship will surely sink before leaving the port. The same analogy
applies to the capacity of nature to accommodate us, which Joseph Hickel contemplated on, suggesting that
developed countries should not push forth more growth but instead adopt ‘de-development’ policies or else,
everybody loses. The rapid pace of technological growth allows no room for nature to recuperate, resulting in
exploitation and irreversible damages to nature. Right now, we are experiencing repercussions of said
exploits in the hands of man-made climate change, which would snowball and affect majority of flora and
fauna, driving half of the latter extinct in less than a hundred year from now. If this continues in its currently
alarming rate, we might bring about our own extinction.
COURSE MODULE

Exercises

Think About These Questions

1. Is our reverence of science justified? Explain

2. Were we successful so far in trying to tie down technology with what we conceive as human
flourishing?
3. What do you think constitutes human flourishing?

Assessment

FOR ONLINE STUDENTS ONLY

Acivities

1. Group Presentation (composed of 3 students per group) For each group, state a brief history or
discovery that brought about the invention or discovery of the things stated below. State their
contributions in our scientific development.

a. Gravity
b. Telescope
c. Processed Food
d. Microscope
e. Radio
f. Benzene Ring
g. Large Hadron Collider
h. Guns
i. Internet
j. Cell phones

2. Brainstorming. By group, try to determine the possible alternatives to growth and development.
 MODULE WEEK NO.1
List down several ways to promote sustainable living and start a mini-campaign advocating the
method of your choice

Links & Other Additional Sources

Video Links : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBShkFDmas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwaNUawXhCs

Assignment

I
Submission ( How & where to submit )
COURSE MODULE

Please follow instructions and Goodluck !

Sources Additional Resources

Bloor, D. (1981). ‘The Strength of the Strong Programme,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 11 (2): 199.
Dayrit, F.M. (2011) “Sustainable Development: An Evolving Paradigm for the 21 st Century.” Stellar Origins
Human Ways. Ed. Ma. Assunta C. Cuyegkeng. 231-57.
Ferngren, G. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition.
New York: Garland.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). ‘How to Defend Society Against Science.” Radical Philosophy 11 (1):3-9
Hempel, C.G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.