[Islam-Online- Science & Technology]

Social scientists, on the other hand, have devised social models whose validity were often times, not validated until after their death. The social and economic modes of philosophers such as Bacon, Sprengler, and Marx have been tested in various political and socio-economic settings. Many of these models failed to explain the events of their times and were replaced by modified or resurrected older models. Failures, however, have never inhibited the desire or drive to devise models that give an orderly picture of the environment in which we live. The first sociologist, Ibn Khaldun based all of his analysis on the Quranic revelations. His models have never been shown to be incorrect and, in fact, have been refurbished and imitated. Social scientists, unlike the natural scientists, are skeptical of the great unifying visionaries from among their ranks whether they are philosophers, religious leaders, political leaders, or even statesmen. Natural scientists, on the other hand, expect that older models will always be replaced with enhanced and all encompassing newer models. New discoveries, resulting in the manipulation and control of matter and energy, always lead to newer models. Organizing or controlling social systems (economic, political, philosophical, religious, etc.) has been more difficult, from the quantitative point of view, for the social scientists than it has been for their counterparts in the natural sciences. We have all witnessed the opposition to establish one world government or a unified global economic system. For this reason, social scientists express such strong reservation about ever finding a unifying model for their disciplines. They are content in revising, generation after generation, all sociologically based theories.
Social scientists are not the only skeptics, however. A biologist (Popper, 1974) argues that all "explanatory (reductionist) science is incompletable; for to be complete it would have to give an explanatory account of itself." Using an example, taken from map drawing, he argues that an attempt by any formalized system to explain itself would prove futile. He submits a stronger argument for the incompleteness of science by appealing to the famous incompleteness theorem of Godel. He argues that since all the natural sciences use arithmetic and since arithmetic is incomplete, therefore all natural science is rendered incomplete. Popper is not the only one challenging the ability of science to "complete" itself. Physicists (Santilli, 1978) themselves challenge the ultimate completeness of physics when some argue that, "theoretical physics will never admit terminal disciplines." Another significant problem is highlighted in this monograph. The attempt to use quantum mechanics to explain the atomic, nuclear and hadronic (sub-nuclear) layers of microscopic reality has produced models that, "an increasing number of physicists believe to be in conflict with physical reality." The atomic layer has produced one single effective model. The nuclear layer lacks one single effective model and the hadronic layer has produced a proliferation of models!
Natural, mathematical and social scientists express skepticism about the ability to devise a unifying modus of operation. An alternative approach is "the common good" model. It is an argument for charging science (Hurd, 1992) with a higher-order thinking model. The argument is for the use of a model that presents scientific and technological concepts in their relation to social concerns, personal development and the common good. "To change the perspective of science instruction from a historical one to a focus on 'learning to learn' projects a future context. The goal is not to predict the future, however, but to use what we have learned and direct the future." The so-called "scientific method" is unknown in the scientific community, insists Paul DeHart Hurd, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, and there are multiple ways of doing science:
"Patterns of thinking shown by researchers in physics, ecology, cognition, molecular biology and computer science, for example, differ in style and vary with the investigator. The reform movement of the 1990s calls for an integration of school subjects: a conceptual convergence of the natural sciences, mathematics, and technology with the social and behavioral sciences and humanities into a coherent whole. A unity of knowledge will make it possible for students to take learning from different fields of study and use it to view human problems in their fullness from several perspectives."
The idea of integrating the disciplines around a model of common good, social concerns and personal development, focuses on the human problems created as a result of the extremes to which mankind has gravitated in the use and manipulation of his 'power.' Monopolies, slavery, pollution, ethnic cleansing, nazism, poverty, nuclear intimidation, prejudice, and abuse of power and wealth are the excesses of human nature. In order to counterbalance the tendency towards these extremes, a view of science is needed which alerts us to the boundaries beyond which, if we trespass, leads to the same said abuses. A view of science based on the concept of duality would indeed accommodate Prof. Hurd's common-good model in a natural and humanistic way. Extreme modes of operation within the social realm should be analyzed within the context of the extremes of forces in the natural realm. A balance is between the extremes.
Another approach to the proliferation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge is 'consilience' proposed by the biologist Edward O. Wilson. Over a long career he has made contributions to population genetics, evolutionary biology, entomology, and ethology. He has also had a serious interest in philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences. His 1998 book, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, making us aware of the gaps and problems in his thesis to integrate all knowledge www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067976867X/qid=936038521/sr=1-2/002-2782725-5739447 First introduced by the English philosopher William Whetwell in 1840, the concept of Consilience is the search for proof of "the alignment (literally, the 'jumping together') of knowledge from different disciplines." Wilson argues that, through consilience, we can rethink some of the Enlightenment's long out-of-fashion goals: "the surprising orderliness of the universe, the possible intrinsic consilience of all knowledge concerning it, and the ingenuity of the human mind in comprehending both." By bridging the gap between the traditional divisions of human inquiry and specifically the chasm between the arts and the sciences, Wilson believes that we will at last 'understand' the way our world works. Prof. Sam Samanta at Finger Lakes Community College, located in Canandaigua, NY, has a web site dedicated to Wilson's efforts in consilience but focuses on dualities www.duality.com that need to be reconciled.