Science, History and Postmodern Critique

Research record

Science is one of the most powerful knowledge systems in modern society. Its success is evident in medicine, engineering, astronomy, communications, agriculture, climatology, biology and computational structures. So why does postmodern/historically conscious criticism question science? Question science is not just ‘is it true or not’. The question is—how would scientific problems be chosen? Which concept/measurement would be used? Which organization would control the laboratory/finance/publication? Which historical paradigm/disciplinary matrix would organize the research vision? And how would scientific findings be validated in society? Thomas Kuhn's history of science questions the traditional cumulative picture. normal science solving puzzles within static paradigms; crises/abnormalities sometimes producing scientific revolutions; New paradigms can also change old concepts/standards. The basic assertion of this chapter is that science is both a social institution and a specific method of reality-investigation. its social history would not arbitrarily render scientific facts; its methodological power from social criticism It wouldn't even free them. Scientific objectivity ‘no man/institution’ is not such a vacuum approach; Error reduction is formed by systematic processes—repetition, measurement, criticism, openness, counterproof, statistical discipline, instrumental checking, independent research and revision. History is evidence-based reconstruction. sources could be incomplete/selected; Historians might be questionable; But chronology, provenance, material evidence, textual criticism, independent corroboration and counter-evidence limit conclusions.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first form of the former is scientific realist—excessive force on history/society underestimating the objective achievements of science; Electrons, viruses, planets, genes or tectonic plates are not social stories. The second precedent is social constructionist—scientific facts are not available without laboratories, equipment, institutions, language, and consent; The language of ‘objective reality’ hides this constructed situation. The third premise is historio-relativistic—the historian makes up the plot; Different story possible from same source; That is why a final history is impossible. The fourth antecedent is political—there is a history of colonialism, racial classification, gender bias, environmental damage or warfare techniques in the name of science; Science could not be given moral neutrality. The fifth premise is from the Indian comparison—it may be a displacement of time to directly impose the modern ‘science’ category on jurisprudence, Ayurveda, astrology/astronomy, mathematics, classical medicine or logic.

Uttarapakṣa

Answer to the first premise—physical entities/objects can be real; Scientific concepts/measurements can change history. Realism and historical epistemology are not mutually exclusive. Answer to the second premise—it is possible for knowledge structures to be social; External resistance is also possible. Different laboratories getting the same results, new technologies making predictions successful, pathogens intervening responding—this gives more control than social consensus. The answer to the third premise—the absence of final history is not ‘no historical truth’. new sources could change interpretations; There is a certified range of dates/events/documents. Answer to the fourth premise—science is not a morally neutral institution. Research-purpose, consent, harm, distribution, military use, environment, access are questions of justice/dignity; But moral abuse is not an automatic refutation of scientific fact. Answer to the fifth preposition—read the Indian tradition of knowledge from its historical position/standard/purpose. Comparison with modern science problem-dialogue (problem-dialogue) form; Claims that 'ancient science already had modern X' with direct historical evidence only.

Parallel conclusion

Science is also a social institution, a powerful method of reality-checking. It is wrong to put these two levels against each other. Kuhn shows the historical paradigm/revolution of science; His ideas would not eliminate scientific progress or ontological reason. Theory-relative inspection, incompleteness, finances, reputation, social values ​​and archival selection make objectivity difficult; Not impossible. History is selective reconstruction; Narrative form may be necessary, but chronology, provenance, material evidence and independent corroboration limit the story.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 6 source passages
2. Central thesis · 5 source passages
3. Major arguments · 15 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 5 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 5 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 8 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 8 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 8 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 6 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 20 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Science, History and Postmodern Critique.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-46/