The Importance of Scientific and Multicultural Practice Knowledge - Essay Example

Science is a rich source of knowledge in today's life, and almost every human development has based on scientific research. However, science is not solely dependable and has to be supplemented by other sources of knowledge. The western world has had a lot of influence on the provision of scientific information. Many writers have come up with articles discussing science about different human cultures. For instance, Harding seeks to outlay the importance of scientific knowledge while Kuhn talks about the viability of science research. However, these authors in addition to others, and also insist on the importance of data from sources other than science, while giving some limitations related to science. This essay compares the importance of scientific knowledge to other sources while offering limitations of each type of knowledge source.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Living by science knowledge requires a lot of preparation before dissemination of new information. Scientists have to prepare for all kind of criticism even from some of their own. However, the greatest challenge is the feedback given by locals, who have no idea of such findings (Harding, 2015). Some of the countering information provided by other groups of people may or may not be true, hence very much dictate the progression of scientific findings. Such indigenous people's voice dictates whether research knowledge is to be accepted or rejected, which limits the efforts of scientists as they have to rethink again.

Modern science in most parts of the world today is based on European or European-American to conclude whether information obtained from multicultural sources has any effect on scientific knowledge, one has to find out whether modern science has roots in non-European cultures or exhibits any multicultural elements (Harding, 2015). Moreover, one has also to establish the existence of other non-European cultures, which could be independently strong enough to offer knowledge viable to western science.

There are many traditional cultural theories, some of which seem to interfere with scientific research knowledge. However, other ideas are supportive of modern philosophy, which serve to strengthen modern science for life-long application. Depending on the context, restrictions to new theories do not affect scientific standards (Bradley, 2017). For a new approach to be considered good enough for practice, it should be accurate, consistent with existing related theories, cover a broad scope of elements and be less standard but have a specialized application.

Some theories fail to reflect on the social and cultural aspects of human life, hence are believed to distort scientific growth and practice (Jukola, 2015). Scientists usually employ complex techniques in theorizing their research, thus always avoid to bring to the light some of their thoughts which would otherwise be rejected by modern society. Such theories never interfere with experimental findings as long as a second party is concerned (Bradley, 2017). By deciding on a specific area for the application of a method, a scientist can accurately present viable and accepted results.

Objectivity can be used as a means of extracting knowledge from evidence which is denied for a particular context. However, standard scientific accounts result in an individualistic character about wisdom (Jukola, 2015). To adequately fit a piece of information into a scientific background, one has to distinguish objectivity as used in a scientific approach and as a characteristic of an individual scientific practitioner's attitude. Some of the standard accounts of science encourage individualism. Therefore, they lead to limitation of rich knowledge sources which could have been vital for modern-world practice.

Fitting scientific or non-scientific evidence into a context it does not prove helpful also leads to corruption of vital research data. For scientific research knowledge to be used to improve the way of life of humanity and his environment, objectivity should use its original state (Jukola, 2015). As far as actual and equally important multicultural practices could be used to supplement science, they are never adequately accepted in all parts of the world. Most socio-cultural practices are only applicable in regions where the corresponding researchers are based.

Multicultural knowledge could act as an adequate supplement for scientific knowledge. Some cultures are dominant of the modern scientific world, an example being the westerners. Furthermore, there other ancient multicultural practices are rich in factual knowledge that could be of use to modern researchers; for instance, the Indian and Japanese cultures (Harding, 2015). Unfortunately, most of the contemporary standards for scientific research fail to recognize the ancient practices hence contain stagnated advancement about modern requirements.

European and European-American scientists are good at utilizing their corresponding traditions which could prove of importance to their avenues of work. Furthermore, their commendable practices are selective to only those practices which are practical to real life. However, most of the cultures are discriminative in that they do not want to incorporate non-European or non-American cultures, such as the so thought shallow African culture (Harding, 2015). Africans are believed to have just existent for a too short period to offer considerable information. Scientific research without adequate reference to indigenous traditions is as good as inauthentic. Therefore, there is a need for modern scientists to dig deeper into the original contextual cultures.

Science is an independent subject which should not be conflicted with politics. The factual evidence on which science mostly relies can never be argued and determined by votes (Tang et al., 2017). Despite the condemnation of making science democratic, there are still instances whereby democratized science has proven practical. Hilary Rose and Stephen Rose, argue that free science would serve to offer equity and thus avoid discrimination as far as the local people's voices are concerned. Moreover, they suggest that fully implementing democracy in modern science is one of the barriers to success.

If everyone in a region is not allowed to contribute to final decision-making, then it is difficult to achieve science democracy in such a society (Tang et al., 2017). Hilary Rose and Stephen Rose also insist that the attainment of free science would first require a democratic society. Therefore, Lack of social democracy leads to divisions, which contribute to the rise of class conflicts. In such a setting, it is difficult to extract any information any scientific researcher would require to arrive at a practically-viable conclusion. Therefore, internal peace is essential for a democratic society, which in turn would be of help to researchers who seek a people's indigenous knowledge about a selected context.

In support of popular science, Andrew Ross, suggests that science which gives room for every interested individual to air their opinion would be more practical than that which does not. Such science should provide more power to the interest groups rather than the experts. The locals are the ultimate proof that a scientific theory or idea works since it is them or their immediate environment that scientific research results are tested to confirm their viability (Tang et al., 2017). In so doing, the interests of the locals would be represented and thus avoid any form of discrimination or blackmail for the experts' gain.

There is a need to respect others' opinions even when they do not seem any true. However, considering any other group's inputs to scientific knowledge could lead to immediate problems. In almost every group moving towards a specified common-good direction, there exists a character whose sole aim is to joyride or ensures failure for everyone. Therefore, experts must be a bit selective in incorporating external influence in the course of their development (Tang et al., 2017). Maybe the failure to attain a fully-functional free science is due to non-interest groups.

People's science is another aspect of scientific theories that should be considered for adequate extraction of knowledge from general science. According to (Tang et al., 2017), people's science should offer technical help to the oppressed. Researching the social culture of people would also ensure that science incorporates the interests of everyone. A people's science should also provide clarity on its topic of research at a given time.

Conclusion

Science is a vital source of knowledge as far as early modern, modern and post-modern humankind is concerned. However, about the above-referenced literature, science by itself is not the only way of knowing, there are other sources of information such as multicultural practices and knowledge from interest groups among other relevant sources. Researchers of different disciplines such as science and philosophy should be considerate of every group's interest in that context. Selectivity of the people to involve in a given research development is the determinant of either success or failure of a given project.

Referring to as many sources of relevant information as possible during research offers the best chance of success. However, some cultural beliefs in existence today are still too protective of their traditions to adequately disclose relevant data. Some of the modern philosophers are poor in linguistics. Furthermore, they lack efficient translators for contextual languages. The researchers are thus with the only option to cope up with the broken word or just the observable data of a given indigenous people.

According to available knowledge, there still exist challenges in obtaining information for human existence. Most of the local people are not among the top parties to get the news, meaning that it could be possible for them to get distorted information which may be less accurate. Sometimes the locals even get a false report, not knowing the source of information. Lack of accurate information at the required time would limit one's advancement if they were to rely on such knowledge. Therefore, there is a need to emphasize the relationship between scientific data and that from multicultural practices.

References

Bradley, S. (2017). Constraints on rational theory choice. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(3), 639-661.

Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. University of Chicago Press.

Jukola, S. (2015). Longino's theory of objectivity and commercialized. In Empirical Philosophy of Science (pp. 127-143). Springer, Cham.

Tang, L., Almond, G. A., Verba, S., Amako, S., Aoki, T., Ashibe, N., ... & Brownlee, J. (2017). The Closing Down Event of the Southern Weekly. In China's Authoritarian Path to Development: Is Democratization Possible? (Vol. 2, No. 98, pp. 1-22). Newbury Park, CA: News Front.