As a child, the world of science was introduced to me in the form of physics,

chemistry and biology. Then, the meaning that I derived out of it was by dealing
with three different segregations physics juggled with dimensions of time, space,
and velocity etc., chemistry was like math with beakers and biology was
understanding the plant and human physiology.
Now if I am asked what science and technology mean to me, I think it would be a
whole lot different than during school days.
Science is like a library, which stores all the possible data, formulations, predictions
and observations in the form of theories. These predictions are basically those
about the universe, nature and human beings. In short, all that surrounds us, be it
the society we live in or the galaxy that contains us, all those observations that are
noted of these surroundings come under science. Science has been defining the
human existence since time immemorial and it is through these facts that we
validate all the living and non-living beings around us.
Technology is nothing but the application of science. The practical usage of all the
acceptable as well as experimental theories in forms that have formed an integral
part of the human life comprises of technology.
There have been two very famous philosophical views of science:
1. Logical positivism which was formed by the Vienna circle, a group of
established scientists and philosophers in the 1930s
2. Falsification by Karl Popper
Logical positivism:
A group of mathematicians, philosophers and scientists met in Vienna
during the 1930s to discuss the implications of logic in the changing
trends in science. They put forward the view which revolved primarily
around verification. The Vienna circle basically protested and
campaigned that science and scientific knowledge should only be
concerned with verifiable, logical evidences and experiences recorded by
first person observations.
The basic goal at the end through this view is to confirm the truth of
scientific hypothesis by using logical mathematical methods and scientific
observations to create a scientific language that can represent a uniform
structure of the world as a whole.
Falsification:
According to Popper, we should not engage in the quest for verifying and
confirming, rather falsifying is an important foundation in scientific

hypothesis. Falsifiability is a belief that for any theory to have validation it

should first be integrally disapproved before it is accepted as a scientific
theory. In other words, Popper explains that theories cannot be proved;
however they can be disapproved or falsified.
Instead of coming up with a hypothesis, whether by some inductive
scheme or by some creative insight, and then seeking to find confirmatory
evidence, Popper maintained that having come up with a hypothesis, one
should seek evidence which refutes it. The best hypotheses were bold,
and at least superficially, easy to refute because they made many testable
claims. A bold hypothesis which survived these tests was well
corroborated. Popper's scheme seemed both simple and straight forward.
The crucial test seemed to be logically conclusive. It leads to a clear
demarcation between science and non-science.
Science and technology is based on an assumption that this is a social
entity. It has scientists and engineers working in close association to
define STS, who work in a community and observe the practices of the
society.
COMMUNICATION ACROSS SOCIAL WORLDS: THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Thomas Kuhn has redefined the scientific basics and principles in the form
of paradigm shift, which according to him refers to fundamental changes
in the concepts and experiments in science.
Kuhn has used the word paradigm as two meanings:
The first meaning refers to the common thread that members in a
community have, which refers to the commonality they share as far as
methods, techniques, patents and values that the members share are
concerned.
The second meaning refers to the paradigm as being a particular element
of an entire definition which states the obvious and overt rules that define
an articulate way of investigation.
The question that was posed for Kuhn was to understand, investigate and
state by means of these two definitions of the paradigm, what all establish
and create, according to him, normal science. This means that he
planned to establish by these methods whether a particular theory was
scientific or not.
According to Kuhn, the real evolution or so as to say, revolution occurs
when scientists experience aberrations or anomalies which are not
identified by the set of standard paradigms laid out through research till
then yet. When there are plenty of abnormalities detected against a
currently present paradigm, the scientific continence is hurled into a
condition of crisis. It is due to this crisis that new limits are tried, tested
and observed. It is then that new ideas are tried and the previously
established norms and standard rules are discarded. Eventually

a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an
intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new
paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm .
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote, "Successive
transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual
developmental pattern of mature science. In short, when a particular
regulation undergoes a change from one paradigm to another, is when
there is a paradigm shift which leads to scientific revolution. Some of
the well-known examples of paradigm shift which I have researched after
reading this chapter are:
The acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, that all life comes from
life, as opposed to the theory of spontaneous generation, which
began in the 17th century and was not complete until the 19th
century with Louis Pasteur.
The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics.
The Kuhnian theory of paradigm shift also stressed upon the problem of
incommensurability. This is because different people will see a particular problem
differently, based on their own principles, ideas and experiences. Kuhn states that
the meanings of theoretical terms depend upon the assemblage of entitlements and
claims that they are based on. Because of the different meanings of paradigms to
different theorists, these claims can never be measured on common grounds.

QUESTIONING FUNCTIONALISM:
According to Robert Mertons structural-functionalist view, the basic aim of the
evolving science is to provide an extension of knowledge. He states that there are
three major institutions in a society namely: religion, government and science. The
overlapping of these three institutions help regulate the workings of a society,
which help in defining the extent of stability and growth of a society.
Mertons theory of social structure of science lays down norms and rules which
decide the protocol of behavior that facilitate adequate scientific practice. These
norms are necessary and indispensible in institutions, and the members of society
who follow them are given incentives and rewards and those who dont are
penalized or sanctioned. There are four most important ethos which were described
in 1942 namely: universalism, communism, disinterestedness and organized
skepticism.
Universalism:
The two aspects of Merton's universalism are expressed in the statements that
"objectivity precludes particularism" and "free access to scientific pursuits is a
functional imperative". This means that a scientists claims should be analyzed by

experts without any importance or emphasis given to the caste, race, religion,
nationality or gender of the scientist proposing the claim. The claims should be
subjected to pre-established impersonal criteria regardless of the source. He
thought that the society is not free from prejudice and that influence and personal
contacts are deep rooted and existent in the community. Thus regulating the norms
through such pre-established impartial methodology is the only way everyone is
given an equal right to opportunity.

Communism:
Communism as an ethos states that scientific knowledge in the key product of
science and hence it is common property which is to be equally shared and
everyone is entitled to this knowledge. The people who come up with different ideas
and theories deserve the credit for their creations and creativity; however, they can
in no way dictate or decide who can and how one can use these ideas and
inventions. This helps the society as a whole because now, thanks to this norm,
science is equally accessible to everyone and is now an important component which
promotes the proper functioning, embellishment and growth of the society as a
whole. It proves that science is a social phenomenon and great achievements can
be brought about together as a collective mass.

Disinterestedness:
Disinterestedness states that a scientist should be impartial and unbiased towards
the results, no matter what claims they are supporting. This norm of
disinterestedness was basically aimed at instilling a feeling of common welfare in
the scientists minds. To look at the overall gain of the society as a whole rather
than at personal or individual gains is the essence of this norm.
Organized Skepticism:
It is the natural propensity of a society to not welcome or accept a particular theory
until and unless it becomes well established and verified. The scientific investigator
does not preserve the cleavage between the sacred and the profane, between that
which requires uncritical respect and that which can be objectively analyzed.
The basic glitch in the Mertonian theory is that Merton believed that science is an
institution which is set around a common goal which revolves around the benefit of
the society as a whole. However in reality, there are other institutions, prominently
the government, corporations, publics, and the scientists themselves. The workings
of the society are laid down according to the functions of these institutions as well.
All in all, it can be said that the revolution, growth and the forward movement of
science is basically due to the self-interest of the scientists themselves and their

working towards achieving their individual goals and purposes. This combined
action of scientists, working towards their individual goals, has shaped science to
make it look like it has a common goal.
GETTING IN, STAYING IN, AND GETTING ON:
Being a girl myself and from a family where gender equality has been the apex of all
decisions of the household, I found this piece to be very personal. Even though
science is assumed to be based on facts and observations alone which form a
pattern, it is not that black and white. Culture has played a very important role in
determining the people who are responsible to defining and shaping science as a
value in the community.
According to the chapter on stratification and discrimination, one survey builds up a
picture of the most productive scientist as someone who: is driven, has a strong
ego, has a history of acting autonomously, plays with ideas, tolerates ambiguity, is
at home with abstractions, is detached from nonscientific social relations, reserves
mornings for writing, works on routinized problems, is relatively young, went to a
prestigious graduate school, had a prestigious mentor, is currently at a prestigious
place of employment, has considerable freedom to choose their own problems, has
a history of success, and has had previous work cited.
This definition has many pitfalls in it. For example, it states that a productive
scientist is relatively young. I feel that there is no age to gaining or sharing scientific
knowledge. Also with experience which comes with trying through many years,
comes a better understanding of science. Also it states that the productive scientist
reserves mornings for writings. I have read about many scientists who have come
up with great inventions which were not in sync with the morning time. Knowledge
and discovery are things which are not associated with the dimensions of time. They
take their own time and speed of developing and forming. These are just some
examples that I pointed out. My basic aim is to explain that creating certain
definitions which are nothing but walls will restrict healthy growth of science and
scientists.
The gender based discrimination in science is what I oppose strongly. Even though
women have formed an integral part of development in different aspects and
different domains, it is a limitation as far as science is concerned. Women are
thought to excel as doctors and nurses, but not looked up to be as credible as men
as far as the profession of being a scientist goes. Budding potential in the form of
young girls have so many aspirations, however very rarely do these young girls
dream of becoming scientists. This profession has a masculine note to it and so
even the rare few girls who have such dreams, are discouraged by peers, teachers
and parents. The movies or television series that I have seen, all have men playing
the role of scientists and the nerdy inventors. Women are projected to slide by due
to their good looks in investigations, if playing the role of an assistant. Even if hired

as scientists, young women face a different kind of discrimination. This

discrimination is based on lesser salary as compared to male counterparts, smaller
office , the quality of lab and instruments, the teaching duties and even the start-up
grants. Ladies' support in science and designing consequently damages gendered
desires, and ladies wind up battling various tough fights. While none of these may
unequivocally keep ladies out of the pipeline, launch ladies from it, or piece their
advancement through it, their intensified impacts might be sufficient to keep ladies
from moving easily into and through it.
With separation in center, it is hard to consider science to be productively utilizing
its assets. Rather than a productive meritocracy, science looks more like a wasteful
old young men's system, in which individuals and thoughts are considered critical
and get to be imperative at any rate somewhat on account of their place in different
interpersonal organizations. In the broadest sense, then, tip top gatherings are
socially developed, as opposed to being minor impressions of characteristic and
goal chains of command. Without a doubt elites deliver more or preferred
information over the non-elites: they have aggregate focal points, and will probably
be emphatically strengthened for their work. Be that as it may, the reality of
segregation brings up the issue of whether a portion of the information for which
elites are perceived gets to be critical in light of its relationship with them, and not
the other way around. It likewise brings up the issue of whether science could be
fundamentally diverse was it more libertarian.
CONCLUSION:
Regular to the majority of the above examined perspectives is the possibility that
models or standards are the wellspring of science's prosperity and power. For
positivists, the key is that speculations can be no pretty much than the sensible
representation of information. For falsificationists, researchers are held to a
standard on which they need to dispose of speculations despite restricting
information. For realists, great techniques structure the premise of investigative
advancement. For functionalists, the standards are the rules overseeing exploratory
conduct and dispositions. These norms or standards are endeavors to characterize
what it is to be experimental. They give standards that genuine logical scenes can
satisfy or not, benchmarks to judge between great and awful science. Along these
lines, the perspective of science we have seen so far is not just a reflection from
science, but rather is essentially a perspective of perfect science.