Cognitive diary

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

http://ifastudent-cognitivediary.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-technology-arts-and-nation.html

Science, Technology, the Arts and Nation Building in Nigeria : Part 2: Responses to Abba Gumel

In order to respond adequately to Abba's protests against my description of your response to Soyinka on Boko Haram, it is helpful to present again  your post of Feb 21 that sparked this debate:

Abba via yahoogroups.com  Feb 21

to NIgerianWorldF., naijapolitics, naijaobserver, nigerianid, nigeria360           Nafata,

With all due respect to Wole Soyinka, but his Nobel Prize (in literature) isn't exactly anything to brag about in the grand scheme of things.  If he had won on subjects that truly matter...such as Chemistry, Physics or Medicine, then yes...we will all shout hooray (the Nobel in Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, and to some extent, Economics are the ones most celebrated...I cannot recall anyone who pays much attention to awards in Literature; and if you press me, I cannot name two winners in the literature category).  What Africa needs is real advances in science and technology...and not the art of story telling (with all due respect to those whose job/hobby it is to tell stories or to entertain us with their prowess in the language of Shakespeare).  Besides, there are many others in Africa who are probably as, or even more, deserving of the literature prize (Achebe is surely one).

Disclaimer:  I consider Soyinka to be a tribalist of the highest order.  So, you may wish to read the above bearing this in mind.  I strongly doubt, though, if my view about the importance of the literature prize (vis-a-vis Africa's development) will change regardless who the recipient is.  I like and respect the art...greatly; but I also know that what we do need, and need desperately,  at the present time in Africa is excellence in science and technology...Nobel prizes in those areas are the ones that truly matter to us (and dare I say everyone else).

Netters, I do not intend to offend anyone...I just felt we should place things in proper context.

Abba

Now to Abba’s detailed rejoinder to my essay as well as my counter  to Abba’s rejoinder.

The points being discussed are numbered 1-36. The first paragraph under each number will be my initial comment, which Abba responds to. That is followed by Abba’s rejoinder. My response to Abba’s rejoinder then follows. Each comment is listed under its writer’s name.

On Wole Soyinka in Relation to Boko Haram and Soyinka’s Nobel Prize for Literature

1. Toyin : The Nigerian writer and social activist Wole Soyinka's insistence that the terrorism of Boko Haram is the unanticipated  outcome of  Nigerian support for Islamic extremism in Northern Nigeria as well as the direct expression of the ambitions of some disgruntled Northern politicians has sparked various kinds of response. Some of these have been dismissive, particularly coming from some commentators from  Northern  Nigeria.

Abba : I must say that this part is a little misleading.  I never, for example, condemned Soyinka for his stance on Boko Haram (BH).  To the contrary, he and I share the same view of utter condemnation for what the atrocities committed by the BH thugs.  So, I think it is important you place things in proper context.  You cannot prove that I condemned Soyinka for what he said about BH.  Hence, somehow invoking my name (as you did below) in this context seems inappropriate.

Toyin : You dismissed Soyinka in connection with his comments about Boko Haram as being the handiwork of disgruntled Northern political leaders. You dismissed Soyinka in your response to Nafta’s   critique of Adamu’s dismissal of Soyinka’sessay making that claim about Boko Haram. You stated :

' I consider Soyinka to be a tribalist of the highest order.  So, you may wish to read the above bearing this in mind.'

Since you described Soyinka as a tribalist, that means you see him as identifying with one tribe against other tribes.

In describing Soyinka as a tribalist, you indirectly align yourself with Adamu, who, focusing on Soyinka’s distinction in creating art out of his Yoruba culture describes Soyinka as a pagan tribalist.  Adamu condemns what he describes as Soyinka’s paganism as based in his ethnic identification and you condemn what you describe as Soyinka’s tribalism as based in his ethnic identification. So, Adamu and yourself focus on Soyinka’s ethnic identification as a means of condemning him.

While Adamu condemns Soyinka’s  paganism as expressed in his art, you also dismiss  Soyinka’s art, describing it  as peripheral in building modern society and his Nobel prize for literature as not significant since only science prizes are significant, in your view.

Is it possible, then, to disengage your dismissal of Soyinka as a tribalist and his global artistic achievement as of little significance   from the issue you were responding to, namely Soyinka’s description of Boko Haram as the handiwork of desperate Northern politicians and of a Northern

Nigerian culture of Islamic extremism? I don’t think so because that position of Soyinka’s on Boko Haram is the source of the dismissal of Soyinka by Adamu and yourself. That dismissal of Soyinka by you in that context  suggests you are unhappy with Soyinka’s argument and see him as anti-North since the North is the ethnic region where the politicians and religious attitudes Soyinka is criticising come from. Since you say he is a tribalist, what tribe do you see him as working against except the tribe represented by his argument about the sources of Boko Haram, since your words suggest that his critique of some Northern politicians and of the region’s Islamic culture is a demonstration of tribalism rather than critical insight into Nigerian social reality? You were  not necessarily condemning Soyinka’s condemnation of Boko Haram but dismissing his description of Boko Haram as the work of some Northern politicians and as rooted in Northern Nigerian Islamic extremism.

2. Toyin : One such, by Abba Gummel,  dismisses Soyinka's 1986 Nobel Prize for Literature on the grounds of literature and the arts as being of little value in building modern societies, particularly in the face of the development challenges faced by Nigeria, arguing  that modern societies are built on the foundations of science and technology.

Abba : This is where the problem with your piece is.  There is a clear disconnect between your central premise (Soyinka's view on BH) and what you are attributing to me now (my comment on his Nobel Prize vis-a-vis Nigeria's science-inspired development).  The two issues are totally unrelated. Regardless of what Soyinka would say about BH, my views about Nobel Prizes on things that don't matter (such as his own prize) remain the same. I hope you can update your piece accordingly (I noticed it is already published in the web)...I feel misrepresented (and I do not think that's your intention; nonetheless, I feel it is always better if things are put in proper context and people are properly represented...if you have to include my name in the piece, I feel it is only fair you do so in the context within which my contribution on the subject was made).  I said the above not as a criticism, but as a reminder (in a collegial spirit) that people should always be quoted within proper context. 

Another issue is that the debate on whether or not arts had any role in science and technology was not a regional one (your first paragraph seems to suggest that only people from the North are against Soyinka and the value of his prize...I think if you follow the thread carefully, you would see that some from the South also share my view that modern nations are built based  on excellence in science and technology).  In any case, your opening paragraph has all sorts of problems in my view...and I hope you can fix it (a scholarly writeup should be free of such misrepresentations in my view).  

Toyin :  You cannot successfully disconnect your comments on Soyinka as tribalist and as a practitioner of the arts, which you describe as peripheral to Nigerian development, from the context that inspired those comments of  yours, namely Soyinka’s description of Boko Haram as the work of disaffected and desperate Northern politicians and as the unanticipated outgrowth of Northern Islamic extremism,  because, without the context of Soyinka’s comments about Boko Haram we would not have your own comments which are a direct response to Soyinka.

Your focus on ethnic affiliation as a means of critiquing Soyinka is best seen, therefore, as a dismissal of his opinion on a particular group of politicians from a particular ethnicity, the indigenous population of Northern Nigeria, and of his views on Boko Haram as fed on a culture of violent Islamic  extremism rooted in Northern Nigeria.

Like Adamu, you did not explain why you think Soyinka’s argument about the origins of Boko Haram demonstrate an ethnic bias. I am convinced you were both unable to even attempt proving such a point because the entire nation knows that some Northern politicians threatened exactly what Boko Haram is doing now. The nation also knows that violent Islamic extremism has been a recurrent feature of Northern Nigeria for decades. So, an effort  at  debunking  Soyinka’s link between Boko Haram and some  Northern politicians and Islamic extremism in Northern Nigeria seems to have been too difficult to sustain by Adamu and yourself. Adamu and yourself found it more convenient, therefore, to dismiss Soyinka, Adamu, on the grounds of his paganism and you for what you describe as his tribalism.

Is it realistic to dissociate your dismissal of Soyinka’s  Nobel prize from your dismissal of Soyinka’s social vision in the name of his alleged tribalism? I don’t think so because this criticism is  part of your effort to discredit Soyinka by describing his person and achievements as of little significance at both the local and global level, using your declaration that he is a tribalist and your argument that only the science Nobels  are significant. Through this strategy, therefore, you indirectly dismiss Soyinka’s argument on Boko Haram. The underlying argument of your response is “ Why pay attention to the views on Boko Haram of this tribalist who assumes a significance he does not have, being engaged  in pursuits peripheral to national development?”

People beyond Nigeria question the significance of the arts. Yeye Rolling in the course of this debate describes Soyinka’s importance as of little consequence. Your own comments on Soyinka as social critic and artist, however, demonstrate a scope and denigrative determination that go far beyond challenging the arts or challenging Soyinka’s significance in a genuinely critical spirit.

Rather than trying to demonstrate what is lacking in Soyinka’s description of Boko Haram as the work of some Northern politicians, politicians of your own ethnicity, and as the outgrowth of decades old  tolerance of  Islamic fundamentalism in Northern Nigeria, Islam being the dominant religion of the Northern region which is your ancestry,  and perhaps your own religion too,  you dismiss   Soyinka as “a tribalist of the highest order”. Through your  dismissal of Soyinka as the worst kind of  tribalist   you thereby indirectly condemn Soyinka’s description of Boko Haram as the work of  some Northern politicians, politicians of your own ethnicity, and as the unanticipated metamorphosis of Northern centred Islamic fundamentalism. You suggest indirectly, but unmistakably, on account of the context of your comments, that those views of Soyinka on Boko Haram are  a demonstration of tribalism, a social disease you suggest is fundamental to Soyinka’s identity.

The context and content of your post, therefore, suggest decisively that all comments you make in your post are primarily directed at denigrating  Soyinka and only secondarily at any  other subject you introduce into your comments, such as your claim about the peripheral significance of the arts in modern nation building.

You reinforce your explicit dismissal of Soyinka’s social vision and national  interventions in describing him as “a tribalist of the highest order”, by dismissing his global achievements as represented by his  Nobel Prize in Literature :

With all due respect to Wole Soyinka, but his Nobel Prize (in literature) isn't exactly anything to brag about in the grand scheme of things.  If he had won on subjects that truly matter...such as Chemistry, Physics or Medicine, then yes...we will all shout hooray (the Nobel in Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, and to some extent, Economics are the ones most celebrated...I cannot recall anyone who pays much attention to awards in Literature; and if you press me, I cannot name two winners in the literature category).  What Africa needs is real advances in science and technology...and not the art of story telling (with all due respect to those whose job/hobby it is to tell stories or to entertain us with their prowess in the language of Shakespeare).  Besides, there are many others in Africa who are probably as, or even more, deserving of the literature prize (Achebe is surely one).

Is it realistic to describe these comments of yours as inspired purely by your views on the peripheral value of the arts in nation building?

No.

It is not realistic to do so on account of the tone, content and context of your comments. You are focused on denigrating Soyinka as a person of little consequence in the context of his views on Boko Haram. You describe him as a tribalist without stating why you think so. You add to these dismissals  your view that others are as deserving or more deserving of the literature Nobel than him, thereby suggesting that his professional distinction is overblown. You add to that a dismissal of his Nobel prize as insignificant.

Are these comments of yours  primarily a critique of the arts in relation to the sciences or a critique of Soyinka in the context of his linking Boko Haram explicitly with Northern Nigerian political and Islamic extremism? Are your comments on the arts, which you might have held independently of the Soyinka context, not introduced at this point, and in such a manner  as to further denigrate Soyinka beceause of his views on the origins of Boko Haram? :

“With all due respect to Wole Soyinka, but his Nobel Prize (in literature) isn't exactly anything to brag about in the grand scheme of things.  If he had won on subjects that truly matter...

I cannot recall anyone who pays much attention to awards in Literature; and if you press me, I cannot name two winners in the literature category)”

The context, content and tone of your comments, therefore establish that your primary goal is a dismissal of Wole Soyinka and only secondarily a position on the arts and the sciences in relation to national development. 

The Soyinka critics from Northern Nigeria I have read do not address the recorded fact that some Northern politicians, most prominently the unsuccessful Presidential candidate Abubakar  Atiku, threatened violence if Northern Nigeria was not awarded the Presidency in the last elections. An escalation of Boko Haram terrorism and a marked politicisation of its activities and comments,

describing itself as on a mission to humble the elected government and restructure the nation through terror, followed these threats from Northern Nigerian politicians.

These Soyinka critics from Northern Nigeria I have encountered also do not address the culture of Islamic extremism and random but periodic violence that has marked Northern Nigeria for decades, expressed with particular prominence in recurrent pogroms against people not of Northern ethnicity living in the North as well as Christians, a culture that is rightly described as the seedbed for the systematization of the pogrom culture represented by Boko Haram. These Soyinka critics, except Zainab Usman in “APeople in Terminal Decline”,  also do not address  Soyinka’s argument that the creation of a class of impoverished young people in the name of the Islamic students known as almajiris  created a socially disenfranchised, gullible and volatile group readily available for violence against those perceived as enemies.

SamNda-Isaiah and Mahmud Jega make a vigorous effort  in grappling with the Boko Haram problem in the context of their critique of Soyinka’s position on the terrorist group, even as they avoid addressing the historical fact of the threat from the Northern politicians exemplified by Atiku as well as the recurrent anti-Southern and anti-Christian pogroms in the North, along with the problems with Northern Islamic education, the complex of factors Soyinka describes as being the roots of Boko Haram.  Zainab Usman’s essay addresses only the educational problem out of these factors, while contextualizing the relevant issues in a broad socio-economic context that has earned wide admiration from readers.

At the same time, however, in spite of the immediate inspiration and context  of your critique of the arts in relation to science and technology, you raise important questions about those subjects in relation to the development of modern society, questions that need to be addressed because they represent central challenges in the understanding of various approaches to human creativity and its role in shaping society.

I expect your challenge to the arts also has some relationship with the views of others who do not share your implicit dismissal of Soyinka’s comments  on  Boko Haram or of Soyinka’s person. Your challenge to the arts also resonates with similar questions in various cultures across time.

Science, Technology and the Foundations of Successful  Modern Societies

3. Toyin : No society has ever been built primarily on science and technology.

Abba : I bet to differ on this.  How did the Asian Tiger nations, for instance, transform from being poverty-stricken to  the robust (and respected) economies they are today? How did the G8 nations develop their economies?  Take away science and technology, will the US be the global super power she is today? The answer is a resounding no.  I can stop the debate right here...because I think I made my case already...but I will carry on to do justice to your comprehensive response.

Toyin : By 'primarily', I am not disputing the centrality of science in modern society. Without science, Western modernity would  lose much of its  identity. I use  Western modernity  as the central model non-Western countries adapt. I am not using examples from Asia beceause I am

less informed about their history  and because I am focusing  on the roots of modern science in Europe. Some argue that  the roots of modern science are  in the Arab and Islamic world, but I am less informed on that perspective, although its true that the Arab and Islamic civilizations seem to have achieved a high point before the West and contributed fundamentally to Western civilization.

I am arguing that even more central to Western  societies than science is a social culture that allows science to flourish. That social culture has been developed over the centuries through various strands, and has also been fed by science, such as the science that invented the printing press, thereby contributing to mass literacy.

4.  Toyin : To claim that modern society is built on science and technology is   to demonstrate a superstitious attitude to science.

Abba : I disagree.  Modern societies have a number of things in common, one of which is excellence in science and technology (this is something at their core; they never joke with it; they invest heavily on it).  Others are quality services, education, infrastructure, healthcare etc.  Modern nations manufacture things.  Modern nations greatly invest in science and technology (there is a reason why their school curricula always emphasize science and math).  Modern nations value and strive on innovation.  Modern nations create enabling atmosphere to attract foreign direct investments.

Toyin : To argue that advances in science and technology is what African countries  need to become  modern societies is to demonstrate a superstitious reverence for science, rather than an understanding of the role of science in building societies. 

Abba : You keep saying this without giving a single reason to support your claim.  Asian Tigers built their economies based on science and technology (I lived in one of such nations and saw things with my own eyes).  Africa needs to do same in order to develop.

Toyin : By 'superstitious reverence for science' I refer to a reverence that appreciates science but gives it a value different from its actual value, like a religious person ascribing unrealistic expectations to religion. I see  descriptions of science and technology that places those disciplines at the apex of society as superstitious because it ignores the strategic role of non-scientists in those societies, roles which I describe as foundational and as actually managing the development and application of science and technology. Such roles are not understood by such limited celebrators of science and technology because they are dazzled by the obvious achievements of these disciplines. 

But perhaps your position and mine need refinement to achieve greater balance with reality.

5. Toyin :  The fact is that modern societies are based partly on the management of science and technology not on science and technology.

Abba : I am not sure I understand you.  Will there be anything to ``manage" if there was no ``science and technology" in the first place?  I totally disagree with this.

Toyin : Those who manage societies manage science and technology as well as manage other aspects of social existence beyond science and technology. Science and technology are central to modern societies, but their centrality is part of a tight network where they play a role with other skills to which I see them as being subordinated.

Science and technology do not produce the skills used in creating political and social systems but contribute to those skills. Scientific and technological skills are not identical with those used in  developing policies but they contribute to such development through research  contributions about demographics, health and disease etc.  Also, scientists are often not the decision makers of society who decide on resource allocation and application. Such people are often politicians, not scientists. The US President, the UK Prime Minister, the French PM, to mention a few G8 member countries, are neither scientists nor engineers  and many of their cabinet members are not either and   I expect the same holds in  Asia. But these non-scientists and engineers work with scientists and engineers in the relevant capacities.

In these senses, therefore, these non-scientists and engineers manage science, scientists and engineers.

Even in warfare, where science can give a leading edge, armies are also not necessarily  run by scientists. A run through the chiefs of staff of the military of various industrialised  societies will prove this, a point  that remains accurate even in spite of the huge military research and development budget of a country   like the US, and the large R and  D budgets I expect of other nuclear powers  Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India, along with  Iran, in its struggles to become a nuclear power.

In fact, it seems that scientists and engineers are marginalized in terms of political power. This might be because the skills required for science are quite different from those of politics and the social life of the scientist is different from that of the politician. The scientist is busy in the lab, office, etc, working for years while the politicians builds the necessary social capital to climb the political ladder. Many scientists  are also not interested in political power.

Narrow and Broad Understanding of Science

6. Toyin : The narrow sense  [of understanding what science is ] involves the study of the physical character of the universe using methods that can be replicated and assessed by others adequately skilled to do so. In that sense, we have sciences that deal with living and non-living systems, such as physics, chemistry and  biology,  as well as sciences that straddle both, such as mathematics.

Abba : I can accept the above as a definition of the word ``science".  What makes it ``narrow" is something I cannot understand.  The above is (generally) what science is. Can

you provide suitable references (accepted by scientists) that support your characterization of the  above (standard definition of science) as a ``narrow" definition? 

Toyin : By 'narrow' I don’t mean the word pejoratively. I simply mean that there is a strict and a more general definition of science. Linguistics, for example,  is described as the scientific study of language but it cannot be a science in the sense of the physical or biological sciences.

As for scientists describing  science along the lines I gave, see the following :

A. Aristotle, one of the most influential scientists in history, and, I expect,  the creator of a significant degree of the organization of science as it is known  today, as well as the of structure of knowledge as a whole as it is understood in Western scholarship, is  described by Wikipedia as developing this broader meaning of science before a  narrower interpretation emerged : 

'Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe [1]. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained'.

This article quotes :

^ Aristotle, ca. 4th century BCE " Nicomachean Ethics Book VI, and Metaphysics Book I:". "In general the sign of knowledge or ignorance is the ability to teach, and for this reason we hold that art rather than experience is scientific knowledge (epistemē); for the artists can teach, but the others cannot." — Aristot. Met. 1.981b

Note, though, that the same Wikipedia article describes the term  'scientist' as coming  into being many centuries after Aristotle, so its use with reference to him is an interpretation of his meaning rather than a direct translation.

    Science from Art, Art from Science

With reference to ‘art’ in the translation of Aristotle, that could be a reference to critical study of a phenomenon, as different from experience without critical study. The understanding of ‘art’ and ‘science’ as sharply distinct as  is understood in modern Western scholarship might not have held in older civilizations. Such sharp distinctions might be difficult to justify with reference to classical African, Asian, Arab and Persian thought, for example, as demonstrated by the multidisciplinary constitution of particular expressive forms, such as the mathematical structures of Orisa Ifa and   Hindu yantra and the more recent explication of the mathematical significance of Akan and Gyaman Adinkra visual symbols by Akwadapa.

  The mathematical   possibilities of classical Adinkra are alluded to by the supersymmetry physics of Sylvester James Gates   and Michael Fox . They created visual   forms which they named Adinkras in reference to the ideational range of Akan and Gyaman Adinkra, an ideational range encapsulated  by the ability of Adinkra artistic forms to suggest a breath of ideas that  are

difficult to express in words. Gates and Fox justify their creation of images as a means of generating mathematical ideas in stating that the manipulation of the visual images enable the development of equations in a   moreefficient manner than trying to develop the equations without the aid of the images. Gates declares that one Adinkra is worth ten   thousand equation s (p.101) and invokes Aristole’s summation  “Thought is impossible without an image” (p.100).

B. Bertrand Russell, the famous mathematician and philosopher:

“Science, as its name implies, is primarily knowledge; by convention it is knowledge of a certain kind, the kind, namely, which seeks general laws connecting a number of particular facts. Gradually, however, the aspect of science as knowledge is being thrust into the background by the aspect of science as the power of manipulating nature.”

From The Scientific Outlook. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1931. p. 10-11.

Russell describes a general, broader and more specific, narrower view of science. The broader view is applicable to any field, and is applied in the arts and the social sciences. Examples in the arts are the literary theories which try to develop general laws that describe the character of literary forms. Examples of this range from Aristotle’s Poetics, on drama, to the present day, as Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Literary Criticism which tries to arrive at categorisations of literary forms in general  terms of the  motifs, central ideas and images they demonstrate.

Ferdinand de Saussure is described as developing linguistics into the scientific study of language because of his focus on  making generalisations about language from the study of particular languages.

The fact that literary theory and criticism, and linguistics, in a different manner, though, than literary study, use methods related to those in the sciences does not make them science. This is because, even though this point may be  controversial,  they do not demonstrate the level of precision and of mutual assessability vital for science.

Russell goes on to describe a narrower view of science, which is in agreement with the Wikipedia description of two ways of understanding what science is, stating that ‘ "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.’

The article develops this broad sense of science further, distinguishing it from the narrow and more focused sense  :

“In modern use, "science" is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[4] This narrower sense of "science" developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining "laws of nature", based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century,

the word "science" became increasingly associated with scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science.”C. Isaac Newton: “...whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered.” 

From Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in On the Shoulders of Giants : The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. ed Stephen Hawking. London : Running Press, 2002.  p. 733-1160. Quote from p. 1159.

Newton describes his practice in a manner similar to that of the broader understanding of science as presented by Russell and the Wikipedia essay on science. The method of deriving propositions from observation of phenomena, and the generalisation of those propositions, is a method used in greater or lesser degree, in every discipline in modern scholarship. I also understand this method is evident in various disciplines  as far back as the Greeks and the Arab and Islamic civilizations as demonstrated by Plato, among others, and the sociology and philosophy of history of the  Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun. The Wikipedia essay on this work describes its pioneering use of scientific method: "Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data." As a result, he introduced the scientific method to the social sciences, which was considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science" and developed his own new terminology for it."

JAW, a reviewer at the Amazon site of the book describes him as an anti-Black African   racist , however, an uncritical style of thought: "You can chisel out the sections on temperature and race, temperature and behavior, for these are silly and offensive. He compares Sub-Saharan Africans as just a hair above dumb animals, and he slams Arabs and Bedouin in other ways. However, his sections on economics and social politics are still valid, and he was a pioneer in areas that other Westerners tend to get credit for."

I think, though, that the translation of Newton’s distinction  between hypothesis and propositions is confusing while his description of scientific method does not seem to be representative of the practices of scientific methods in their totality but only of a  segment  of such methods. The biologist Peter  Medawar, for example,  in TheArt of the Soluble: Creativity and Originality in Science  argues against confining descriptions of scientific method to observation and consequent generalisation as described by Newton, arguing that science may begin from speculation rather than from deriving propositions from observation of phenomena, a view that seems to be supported by other scientists like Einstein as summed up by a science writer:

“From time to time science involves working with current knowledge and then, in order to break new ground, moving on to speculation, imagination, and even fantasy for inspiration. It was

Einstein who remarked that: “Imagination is more important than knowledge,” and: “If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”  ”

From “Do We Need A New Kind of Science?”  By Rusty Rockets

Russell expresses a view on science and art as a follow up to the quote above, which I present here to show his comparison of art and science. Russell goes on after this to argue that science has fundamentally reshaped even the organisation of societies and family life 'resulting from the new forms of organisation that scientific technique demands' :

'It is because science gives us the power of manipulating nature that it has more social importance than art. Science as the pursuit of truth is the equal, but not the superior of art. Science as a technique, though it may have little intrinsic value, has a practical importance to which art cannot aspire'

 I will not examine the validity of Russell's position but reference the Wikipedia essay on science on Criticism of Science.

On Methods in Science

7. Toyin : The essential scientific character of such disciplines is  not in their subject matter but in the manner in which they address that subject matter, as Dominic Ogbonna  observed in this debate.

Abba : I do not agree.  Are you saying the essential nature of Chemistry is not Chemistry but how Chemistry addresses some aspects of Chemistry?  This is unclear to me...  I do not expect any scientists to agree with you on this and the ``narrow definition" claim.  I assume you are not a scientist (if you are, sorry for my wrong assumption).  If this is the case, shouldn't you be using the definition used by scientists?  Do you really have to tell others what they are...particularly when what you say differ from what they say they are?

Toyin : I needed to frame that more carefully. The more accurate description is 'The essential scientific character of such disciplines is  the manner in which they address that subject matter and the knowledge arrived at through those methods'.

Its true, though, that various disciplines belonging to the ancient knowledge of various principles, from Africa to Asia, also study the subject matter of science but their status of these studies as science, as it is currently known, needs to be carefully examined. Doctors in classical African medicine are able to effect cures through their knowledge of the body, of herbs and even a degree of magic and religion. But does the fact that they can achieve this automatically make them acceptable as science in the conventional sense? Biomedical doctors also study and heal the body using plant based medication, among others but are they identical in their science with the doctors of classical African medicine?

8. Toyin : The broad understanding of science is in the adaptation of critical methods associated with science to other disciplines.

Abba : I do not understand what you mean here.  What are ``critical methods"?  So, ``science" is about using scientific ``methods" in other (presumably non-scientific) disciplines?  Let me understand this correctly.  It is ``science" if I, for instance, use the method of designing a vaccine in one of Soyinka's plays, but it is not science if I actually design a vaccine?  I do not understand....applying science to other areas is science but doing science itself is not science?  Am I missing something?   I totally disagree with this ``broad definition". This is surely not accepted within the scientific community.  This is (I think) a classical case of non-scientists defining what science is or isn't. 

Toyin : The adaptation of critical methods associated with science to other disciplines involves using critical methods, such methods being what science is associated with. The  methods of assessment of the validity of those ideas may differ between science and other disciplines, however. Science is centred in mutual verification of ideas. Other disciplines adopt the criterion of  mutual assessment but not necessarily mutual  verification. A scientific theory needs to be accepted by a broad  consensus of scientists if it is to be accepted as a valid scientific  theory but the same does not hold in non-scientific disciplines, even though they employ critical methods. An example of philosophical discourse, for example, can be appreciated as valid by philosophers without their all having to agree that it is  correct on the issues discussed. Philosophical discourse does not need consensus as to correctness for acceptance by philosophers. Scientific ideas, on the other hand, are  dependent on the acceptance of the global community of scientists for them to be declared part of mainstream science. 

9.  Toyin :  In doing that, however, it is vital to observe broad variations between the character  of  living and non-living systems , and broad variations  within the character  of  living systems. Along the lines of adapting scientific methods to a broader range of disciplines, there exist the social sciences of economics and sociology,  and even linguistics, described as the scientific study of language.

Abba : Science is science.  Applying science to other disciplines is still science.  For examples, people in Chemistry apply their work sometimes in biology....does that make their Chemistry not Chemistry?  Those in math apply their work almost everywhere...does that make their math not mathematics?  One of the beauties of most of the sciences is that they can be applied in many different scenarios...there are some that are not really applicable anywhere (those in mathematical sciences, for example, know what I mean), but focus on building the theoretical (rigorous) foundation of the discipline/science.

Toyin : I need to modify this to read  “Along the lines of adapting critical methods to a broader range of disciplines”. I have already explained what I mean by “critical methods” and why their application in science is related to but not identical with their application in other disciplines.  At the centre of that difference is the criterion of mutual verification. There are other differences, though, involving conceptions of meaning and truth, such as differences in the use of metaphors in science and the arts, even though both employ critical methods in their study.

10. Toyin : This broad understanding is better understood, not as science, but as the adoption of a critical method to the study of phenomena.

Abba : You have not justified your ``broad definition".  You have not given any supporting references (accepted by scientists).  You have not given any specific examples.  I would be curious to see if any serious scientist would agree with you on this.

I have addressed this above.

11. Toyin : The success of modern Western society is in the adoption of critical methods, not on science, in terms of the physical sciences like physics, or the biological sciences like human biology.

Abba : So, Apple or Microsoft were not built based on hardcore science (engineering, computer science, math etc.) but somehow on the adaptation of scientific methods into other areas?  I do not understand this at all.

Toyin : Apple and Microsoft are examples of the symbiosis between science and larger social factors that  empower the development of science. These social factors are related to a culture of critical approaches to reality that  foster the development of science. These factors also include a robust capitalist system that enabled moneyless entrepreneurs  like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to find investment that enabled  them develop their companies. Their scientific acumen alone was not enough for such success. If it was, those  Nigerian manufacturers of mechanical constructs who have not been funded would have become very visible but they are not because the economic and manufacturing environment has not been helpful to them. Scholars, such as Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit   of Capitalism , and the discourse that has grown around his work,   argue that the capitalist system that enables the science that plays a central role in Western modernity was fed at its foundation by a host of factors, of which religion is one.

Without a robust investment environment, technology might never develop to the point of making a significant impact on society. Science and technology on their own are not likely to build a society unless aided by factors like economic structures. To insist, therefore, as you do, that science and technology are more important than non-scientific  elements of  society that feed them is missing the point.

Which came first in Western history, science or the non-scientific factors that made science possible? Science is relatively new in Western modernity and was made possible by a host of factors, factors that were often not due to the kind of centralized planning that you advocate, valuable as such planning can be, though. In fact, Western science and technology did not always initially emerge as planned developments. It was the success of the correlation between unanticipated and planned emergence of science that led to what is now science organised  by governments in the West, a model the Asians are adopting.  One can run through the major advances in science and technology that were central to shaping Western modernity and observe that often they did not emerge from centralised planning up till the 19th century. The argument here is that the origins of Western science is often a largely unanticipated  development of larger social factors beyond science.

I am arguing that the success of Western society is based on factors that go beyond science but include science.

12. Toyin : The more specific physical and biological sciences and the more general sciences like mathematics are adapted within a social system based on critical understanding of phenomena, particularly the large scale social systems represented by societies.

Abba : I do not understand all these.  It matters not where science is applied (or to what system it is applied).  Science is, and will always be, science.  You seems to be speaking in tongues....maybe our readers will benefit some more if you give specific examples.

Toyin : By this, I mean that social managers use scientific methodologies in decision making and implementation, without their being scientists, and within activities that are not wholly scientific.

 Examples :

Science is used to prospect for oil and its exploration has damaged the Niger Delta. But the damage is not caused by science and technology but how it was applied without care for the ecological and social systems affected. The decision to allocate a percentage of revenue to the Niger Delta is a logical decision, and logic is central to science. But that policy decision is not an example of science in the strict sense.

If Nigeria were to develop a welfare policy, that policy should  include using scientific methods in deciding who  should benefit and how they should be helped. At the very least, electronic data management methods of beneficiaries  will prove vital. The integration of science into the methods of implementing social policy, however,   does not mean that those policies  are examples of science.

13. Toyin : The success of modern Western society is a demonstration of skilled social management, among other factors that made this quality of social management possible in the first place.

Abba : I disagree.  Further, you did not define what ``social management" is.

Toyin : Social management is the management of large groups of people, particularly those organized in terms of long standing communities. I argue that skilled management of their societies, using various knowledge and skills, is why the West is so successful. Science and technology play a central role in that success but they are   components of a larger whole. Democracy and freedom to study and apply knowledge, as well as capitalism, are central to Western society's success and to the growth of science in the West. Democracy, freedom of thought and capitalism, however,  are neither examples of science and technology nor are they  products of science and technology although science and technology contribute significantly to them.  All these social forms have a long history of development which did not always include the effects of science but which paved the way for science to blossom, although science  plays  a central role in promoting those values.

On the Nature of Technology

14. Toyin :  One could describe technology also in a narrow and a  broad sense. In the narrow sense, it can be described as the practical application of science, particularly in the creation of instruments.

Abba : Again, what makes this ``narrow"?  Can you give any references (accepted by engineers) to justify your definition?

Toyin : The narrow sense consists in a focus on manufactured mechanical products. The broad sense involves the metaphorical adaptation of the idea to involve management of knowledge in general.

I do not [know] what this means.

I expect Abba is referring to the narrow meaning in his focus on physics, chemistry and medicine.

Abba : Technology, to me, is the application of scientific/engineering methods for practical purposes.  It entails the creation/building of things for the benefit of the society (e.g., airplanes, computers, TVs, phones, automobiles, spoons, chairs etc.).

Toyin : Again, by narrowness, I mean a more precise rather a general sense of the term.

Supporting definitions by an engineer:

A. W. Brian Arthur, B. Sc. Electrical Engineering,  M. A. Operational Research, M. A.  Mathematics, Ph.D. Operations Research, M. A.  Economics.

External Faculty Member at the Santa Fe Institute, IBM Faculty Fellow, Visiting Researcher in the Intelligent Systems Lab at PARC (formerly Xerox Parc). Former Professor of Economics and Population Studies at Stanford University.

“I will define a technology in this paper quite simply as a means to fulfill a human purpose.

The purpose may be explicit: to power an aircraft say, or to sequence a DNA sample; or it may be hazy, multiple, and changing: a computer has no single, explicit purpose. But whether its purpose is well defined or not, a technology is a means to carrying out a purpose.

 A power station supplies electricity. The Haber process produces ammonia. As a means to fulfill a purpose, a technology may be a method or process or device: a particular speech recognition algorithm, say, or a filtration process in chemical engineering, or a type of diesel engine.

The word technology has two other legitimate meanings: a body of practices and components, such as electronics or optical data transmission; and “the totality of the means employed by a people to provide itself with the objects of material culture (Webster).”

From “The Structure of Invention” in Research Policy 36 (2007) 274–287

[In his book The Nature of Technology: What it is and How It Evolves W. Brian Arthur   “defines “technology” in three ways: (1) a means to fulfill a human purpose, (2) an  assemblage of practices and components and (3) a collection of devices and engineering practices available to a culture.”From By Michael R. Nelson W.Brian Arthur’s     The Nature ofTechnology: What it is and How It Evolves

Accessed 9 March 2012

[Brian Arthur]points to the human propensity to solve problems as the force that leads to new generations of technology through recombination of existing technologies. Technology is “alive” in the sense that a coral reef is alive. The reef is an ecological system with many species, and technology in the broadest sense is an elaborate and constantly changing structure made up of thousands of discrete technologies, themselves composed of separate technologies.

Top of FormBottom of Form

John Markoff “RethinkingWhat Leads the Way: Science, or New Technology?”in The New York Times, October 19, 2009

The Wikipedia essay on technology expounds  the term along similar lines - 

“Technology is the making, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or perform a specific function.”

Note that this definition involves both mechanical forms and methods of organisation. Such methods might not include building a mechanical object but simply consist  in running an organisation, for example.

Wikipedia goes on to provide views of various scholars that support the specific and narrow and broad and   general views of technology :

“Dictionaries and scholars have offered a variety of definitions.

...

Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value. In this usage,

technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems. It is a far-reaching term that may include simple tools, such as a crowbar or wooden spoon, or more complex machines, such as a space station or particle accelerator. Tools and machines need not be material; virtual technology, such as computer software and business methods, fall under this definition of technology.[10]

The word "technology" can also be used to refer to a collection of techniques. In this context, it is the current state of humanity's knowledge of how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems, fulfil needs, or satisfy wants; it includes technical methods, skills, processes, techniques, tools and raw materials. When combined with another term, such as "medical technology" or "space technology", it refers to the state of the respective field's knowledge and tools. "State-of-the-art technology" refers to the high technology available to humanity in any field.Technology can be viewed as an activity that forms or changes culture.[11] Additionally, technology is the application of math, science, and the arts for the benefit of life as it is known. A modern example is the rise of communication technology, which has lessened barriers to human interaction and, as a result, has helped spawn new subcultures; the rise of cyberculture has, at its basis, the development of the Internet and the computer.[12] Not all technology enhances culture in a creative way; technology can also help facilitate political oppression and war via tools such as guns. As a cultural activity, technology predates both science and engineering, each of which formalize some aspects of technological endeavor.’

The Wikipedia links provide the necessary references for these views.

It also includes critiques of technology, such as 'Technicism...an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society.'

Science, Technology and Contemporary Nigerian Social Challenges

                        Social Management and Technology

15.  Toyin : Let us run through contemporary Nigerian social/ development  challenges and try to see what role science and technology could play in addressing them. My argument will be that science and technology are useful but as methods and insights managed by social managers, not always  using the tools and knowledge of the sciences in their core sense. Such social management is not based on physics or mathematics, or biology and medicine,  but uses these disciplines to achieve the overarching goal of social management. I also compare and contrast the Nigerian institutions represented by the oil industry, banking and  Nollywood, the Nigerian film industry. 

Abba : Again, you have not defined what ``social management" is and what the ``social managers" will actually be ``managing".  Will the ``social managers" be in business if there was not real science in the first place?

Toyin : I described social management in section 13 as the management of large groups of people, particularly those organized in terms of long standing communities. The management of society predates the rise of sophisticated science.  Your core perspective, however, is focused on modern, not older societies. My argument is that science is pervasive in successful modern societies but as part of a larger fabric. I have given some examples of this above. I argue that skilled management of their societies, using various knowledge and skills, is why the West is so successful. Science and technology play a central role in that success but they are   components of a larger whole. Democracy and freedom to study and apply knowledge, as well as capitalism, are central to Western society's success and to the growth of science in the West. Democracy, freedom of thought and capitalism, however,  are neither examples of science and technology nor are they  products of science and technology although science and technology contribute significantly to them.

                               Social Management,   Science, Technology and the Fight against Islamic Terrorism

16. Toyin : The progress made against Boko Haram so far has been though information sourcing and tracking of their members. The role played by science in the sense of the specialized skills of particular scientific disciplines has been in the use of electronic tracking  technology through which the terrorists'  phones were tracked. Technology also played a role in the weapons used in battling the members of the sect.

Abba : Good. Remote sensing, GIS and other wireless tracking processes and devices were (reportedly/presumably) used by our intelligence people, in conjunction with the fine men and women working at the National Communications Commissions (a Commission that is based largely on advances in electrical/telecommunication engineering, computer science, quantum computing/physics,nanotechnology etc.)   Do you see ``arts" playing any role here? Do you see any ``social managers" playing any role here?  It is a clear demonstration of excellence science and technology at its best.

 Toyin : Are the security services run as scientific establishments? They can be described as  military establishments. As military establishments, they are not run by scientists. Even if scientists happen to run them that is more by chance than design. The same goes for the highly  technologically oriented US and Israeli and other Western militaries.

17.  Toyin : Does the use of technology in these two forms imply that these successes are due to the use of science and technology?

Abba : Of course, except if we do not believe what the law enforcement people say (they claimed that the suspects were tracked and apprehended based on using these...scientific...methods).  Intelligence and law enforcement officers have other means as well...but it was clear (at least if the law enforcement people were to be believed) that science and technology played the most important role in making the arrest possible.

 Toyin : Wrong statement from me here. I got carried away by the need to counter what I see as an extreme argument from you. Its more accurate to  state than science and technology played a central role, as they were mobilised by the security forces.

18. Toyin : Only partly so, because the anti-Boko Haram operation necessarily involves a broad  range of methods of which the use of electronic tracking technology and physical weapons are two  factors.

Abba : How comes then the leaders were not captured much earlier?  You can resolve this question by asking the law enforcement people if they would have been able to capture Abul qaga (or whatever his name is) without the use of technology.  I have stated that law enforcement people have tons of arsenal (methods) at their disposal...however, it just turns out that, in this particular case, the use of technology was what made the arrest possible.

 Toyin : You could be right on this.  19. Toyin : I expect the operation involves information sourcing by word of mouth from informants among members of the communities where Boko Haram members live. If the fight against Boko Haram is to succeed, such  intelligence gathering from within the community needs to be intensified. The fight against Boko Haram needs to be won primarily in the hearts and minds of Nigerians, which is the core arena of the war the sect has unleashed on the nation. The sect is seeking to prove to Nigerians that it represents a parallel government that embodies the aspirations of Northern Nigeria.  That effort will fail when Northerners can be decisively convinced that Boko Haram  represents only themselves and the pauperisation of the North.

Abba : You still did not disprove the fact that technology played the major role in the arrest of that BH individual...and you have also failed, up till this moment, to prove that science and technology is not the most important building brick/foundation for modern nations.

Toyin : I don’t disagree that science and technology played a major role. My argument is that the complete management of the security services and the fight against terrorism would need more than the use of science and technology to succeed.

You exaggerate the role of science and technology in building modern societies because  you give scientists  and engineers roles they don’t play. They are not necessarily politicians, who run society. They man some scientific establishments but these establishments are only a part of modern societies.

                   Social Management and the  Struggle for the Soul of Northern Nigeria Against Islamic Extremism

20. Toyin : When people are convinced that they have more to lose than to gain   by keeping silent  about people suspected or known to be Boko Haram members, and that they are protected in revealing them to the government, then the fight is being won. Until then, even if this group is suppressed, another one might emerge in its place, as has been the pattern for some time in Northern Nigeria, from the pre-Maitasine era to Boko Haram. 

Abba : I think you digressed from the topic at hand.

                                        Democratic Government and Western Education as Key Conduits of Modern Society

Toyin : This is not a digression because your focus is on science and technology in building modern societies, particularly in Nigeria. One of the challenges of building such societies, particularly in Nigeria, is combating extremists. If they are not defeated, how will development occur? Boko Haram  bombs ravage Northern Nigeria in the name of attacking the Nigerian government, thereby destroying the security necessary for development. They also destroy schools, thereby reinforcing the understating that their name means ‘Western education is a sin’.

Western education and scholarship are central to the creation of modern societies, most of which are adaptations of the model developed in Europe and apotheosised, taken to a higher level, by the United States of America. One of the values at the heart of this educational system is a critical culture, itself exemplified with particular force by science and technology, of which Western education is the central conduit in the  modern world.

Can  such a critical culture survive in an environment dominated by fundamentalist  religious terror?

Even if one wants to adapt the Western educational model, the central qualities that have made this educational system central to modern society and its science and technology will have to be distilled and adapted to any modification to create another   educational system.

Boko Haram justify their destructive culture in the name of Islam, thereby identifying with the region’s dominant religion in the name of a unified regional identity. If Northern Nigeria is to develop a modern society, talk less a scientific civilisation, such retrogressive attitudes must be defeated.

In fact, modern Western societies grew to a significant degree because they defeated Christian extremism for the battle for legitimacy, so that democracy, freedom of study and other values centred in human ability to direct their own existence  could be won from the Church. The Protestant Reformation began the struggle in earnest, rolling back the evils of the Inquisition, where a scholar like Giordano Bruno was executed by the Church for views contrary to Church doctrine and Galileo Galilei was tried and sentenced for arguing that the earth revolves round the sun.

Tackling  the roots of Boko Haram in crude understandings of Islam, particularly emerging from limited education that is ignorant of the central role of Islam in what is known as Western education and modern science in  the contribution of Islamic civilization to this body of knowledge  and skills known as Western education will be crucial to the development of a modern society in Northern Nigeria.

21. Toyin : When people are convinced that they have more to lose than to gain   by keeping silent  about people suspected or known to be Boko Haram members, and that they are protected in revealing them to the government, then the fight is being won. Until then, even if this group is suppressed, another one might emerge in its place, as has been the pattern for some time in Northern Nigeria, from the pre-Maitasine era to Boko Haram. 

Abba : I think you digressed from the topic at hand.

Toyin : How will a modern society grow if citizens identify with enemies of modernity, perceived as fighting a so called enemy government? Whatever the limitations of the country’s democratic system, it is a  central vehicle of the country’s movement into modernity.

How will a modern society grow if these anti-modernists are being sheltered in the name of religious and ethnic identification and fear? They are dealing a devastating blow to the North’s hopes for modernity  by presenting their  retrogressive ideology as more powerful than a nation struggling to enter into the modern era.

Islamic  and ethnic identification and fear seem to me to be  major reasons why Boko Haram survives in the North. Remove these and they become vulnerable.

                            Educational Challenges of Northern Nigeria

22.  Toyin : Even after this stage of terrorism in Northern Nigeria is addressed, what is to be done with the region's educational and other social problems that make it a flash point for recurrent social upheavals? There seems to be an educational crisis in Northern Nigeria, with the Islamic educational system favored by many being ill equipped to manage the transition to a modern society. How is that to be addressed? Such issues seem to me to be more in the realm of educational theory and practice and politics, than physics, chemistry, medicine  or any of the traditional sciences.

Abba : Again, this is not really in line with the topic at hand.

Toyin : It is not a digression. What is the topic? The role of science in building modern societies, particularly in Nigeria. I argue that the scale of the challenge to build modern societies in Nigeria goes beyond science but includes science. The central challenge to modernity in Nigeria is crude approaches to  Islam and the negative impact of aspects of Islamic education and society that need overhauling or elimination.

Can you have a scientific culture, for example, in an environment dominated by religious  faith? Do you see the role of Islam in Northern Nigeria as conducive to the development of sophisticated science? What is the level of critical engagement with the Quran in Northern Nigeria, for example? Part of the method used in diluting the power of the Church was criticism of the Bible, destroying spurious ideas in the Bible about nature, such as literal interpretations of

the creation of the world in six days etc. Do you see any such widespread  critical engagement with religious dogma in the North or in Islam as a whole?

If a  scientific and technological civilisation  is to emerge in Northern Nigeria, the challenge  of Islamic dogma must be dealt with.

                                     Social Development in Relation to Islamic Dogma in Early Girl Marriage

23. Toyin : What about the issue of the marriage of very young girls, creating a ground for severe physical problems on account of the immaturity of the girls'  bodies,  removing  them from the educational system   and severely limiting   their opportunities  to operate productively in the work place,  and ultimately swelling the ranks of the poor?

Abba : This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating about. 

Toyin : How will you build a modern society when such fundamentally backward social practices are the norm? Your argument is about building modern societies, which you argue are based on science. I argue that science plays a central role in such societies but that that role is integrated within larger roles, such as democratic aspiration to equality, freedom of speech and association, freedom to study etc. Such qualities are not notable in Islamic societies. The marriage of very young girls, against all scientific logic demonstrated by the negative biological, educational and social effects on these girls, is part of the culture of being locked in a pre-modern mind-set that is part of the reason  Islamic societies are backward, even if they are rich, as in Saudi Arabia, where women do not drive and where women and men do not mix, while the rest of the world leaves them behind to their petty focus on such trivialities.

David Bornstein, in “Africa’s Girl Power” in The New York Times March 7, 2012, summarizes research on early marriage for girls:

In recent years, leaders in the field of international development have come to agree that the most powerful way to bring lasting social benefits to a country is to expand educational and economic opportunities for girls. What has become known as the Girl Effect is dramatic: A girl who doesn’t attend school or marries young, for example, is at far greater risk of dying in childbirth, contracting H.I.V., being beaten by her husband, bearing more children than she would like, and remaining in poverty, along with her family. By contrast, an educated girl is more likely to earn higher wages, delay childbirth, and have fewer, healthier children who are themselves more likely to attend school, prosper, and participate in democratic processes

The link in the text is to a very powerful video on the subject after which comes a website for addressing the problem. Bornstein also links to a World Bank research report on the subject “Girl’s Education in the 21st Century”, which I attach to this post.

                            The Uncritical Veneration of Muhammed and the Challenge of a Critical Culture in Building Modern Societies

25. Toyin : How is  the religious background of this practice in the marriage of the prophet Muhammad to a pre-pubescent girl   to be addressed?

Abba : This is irrelevant; and I am actually taken aback that you could invoke it.  We can have a debate on the marriages of the Prophet (pbuh) if you wish.   What has ``marriage" and even ``education" (as you seem to be defining it) got to do with the debate of the role of science vs. arts in nation building?

Toyin : This is relevant because of the reasons I have stated in points 19 to 24 above and because if the hold of religious veneration is not broken, modern societies will not develop. Prominent Islamic societies continue to be based on reality denying conceptions derived from Islam, one of which is the uncritical veneration of Mohammed. The Prophet married a pre-pubescent girl, in my view, making sure he preserved a child for his exclusive attention, out of all the adults he could have chosen. He had relations with this young girl while she was still at a young age, an age when in modern times, the girl should still be in school. Contemporary Muslims imitate this practice in uncritical veneration of Mohammed. How will they develop modern societies with such a mind-set? It is argued that the decline of scholarship in the Islamic world came about through the emerging supremacy of religion.

                             Northern Nigerian Economy and the Development of a Modern Society

25. Toyin : Some have called for greater reliance on indigenous wealth generation, as different from depending on oil revenue from the central government. How is this economic transition to be managed? I don't get the impression that physics, chemistry, medicine  or any of the traditional sciences is going to be the knowledge base to be used. They can be adapted to the task but those who run those systems must be competent in a range of knowledge and skills, from economics, to social psychology and politics.

Abba : You are mixing two things here.  Politicians and other administrators do their (admin) thing, and scientists do their own thing as well.  I separate the two.  Administrators (the good ones I mean) play an important role by helping to create the right atmosphere for the scientists and engineers to do their work.  I know what they did in Malaysia, for example.  The administrators (starting from the Prime Minister Mahathir) sought out to attract large multinational corporations to come and invest in their country.... they provided them with the land, infrastructure and tax incentives.  The rest is history.   I am not saying scientists will do everything: science as well as management, administration and politics.  No.  Scientists do need some others to do some of the necessary (admin) chores.  However, let there be no doubt who is most important.  There is absolutely no development without science and technology.  The managers will have nothing to manage if there is no science.  Etc.

A central problem with your argument is that you conflate uncritically the following points:

a. Modern societies are rooted in science and technologyb. b. The social managers will have nothing to manage if these is no science.

c. Scientists are the most important members of society.d. The value of administrators is primarily to create the right atmosphere for scientists and

engineers to do their work.  Others do administrative chores while scientists do the most important work for building modern societies.

These points do not necessarily imply each other. Also, for you to adequately prove these points, even if you don’t succeed in demonstrating decidedly that they are not fallacious, which I seem them as being, you will need a more rigorous  analysis than you are doing.

The core of my response is that of demonstrating the fallacious nature of your arguments, including quoting fellow scientists and engineers to support  my views. In the course of this debate, I have also presented a survey of the origins of Western science, the globally dominant scientific culture,  in its roots in  bodies of knowledge closer to the arts than to science, which you have not addressed.

Science and technology are vital to modern development but they are part of a larger whole,  which includes politics and other disciplines and practices. Do the scientists run the country as a science project? No.

                             Addressing the Security Challenge Embodied by Kidnapping

26. Toyin : How do we address the kidnapping problem?

Part of the problem must be economic. Another could relate to a sense of injustice projected by an awareness of corruption. It is also crucial to identify and destroy the kidnapping networks.

How are people to be enabled  to gain employment without unnecessary difficulty? How can the cost of living be significantly reduced to make life easier and crime less compelling? How can the corruption be reduced significantly and hopefully eliminated so that people are less prone to consider themselves justified in using desperate methods against a society they see as having betrayed them? How can the kidnapping networks be identified and destroyed?

Addressing these questions would span a broad range of skills that go beyond such sciences as physics, chemistry and medicine.

Abba : You are digressing to social and security problems.  I never claimed that science has all the answers to non-scientific problems.  Science and technology, for me, is about building/manufacturing things.  It is about building industries.  It is about creating products for local and  international markets.  Etc.

Toyin : If you are not able to address social and security problems how will you develop a modern society? Will the building and manufacturing of things and of industries, creating products for local and international markets  of themselves create successful social systems?

Yes, science makes the products. Do scientists sell those products? Do they manage the economy? Run the complex national system? Science is used by economists, as in mathematics, but does that make them scientists?

I see your entire perspective as giving science more than its due.

                      Power Generation, Technological Strategies and Political Will                    

27. Toyin : Another challenge is energy, particularly the generation and distribution of electricity, this being critical to running a modern economy and society and to business and research  in all fields.

Power generation is a demonstration of science and technology. Is Nigeria failing in achieving this basic task adequately because of a lack of scientists and engineers or because of inadequacies in the allocation  of resources and their application to the task at hand? Can  such failures of allocation and implementation be corrected by science and technology or do they operate in the  more shadowy zone of political  vision and commitment to the nation rather to political cliques?

Abba : Again, science does not address all social problems. Science does not solve our corruption and incompetence problem.    What science can do, though, is to offer additional alternative energy generation methods...such as using solar power or even some agro-based products (eg ethanol)

Toyin : Excellent. We are in total agreement here. If so, then what is  the true scope of science, even when we  acknowledge the centrality of science in modern society?

28. Toyin : I don't get the impression that having skilled scientists  running the country or even running the power and steel ministry automatically translates into efficient management of these resources.

Abba : No one says scientists have to run the country.  Was the US, for example, led by scientists when they started their industrial revolution?  It does not matter who runs the nation...as long as they understand the fact that modern nations are built based on knowledge-based economies rooted in advances in science and technology.  Bush was the C-in-C for the USA for 8 agonizing years, for God's sake.  Did he do anything to alter the deep-rooted mindset in America that science and technology is what builds nations?  Did he mess up with Silicon Valley, for example?  Did he mess up with university grants/funding?  Did he cut the budget for science and technology research (NSF and related bodies)?  Of course not. No self-respecting nation jokes with science and technology.  It is, and will always be, the engine of the economy.

Toyin : Our disagreement here is on your statement that

“science and technology is what builds nations.”

and your earlier assertion that

scientists and engineers are the most important members of modern society and other disciplines are peripheral, and at best,  simply support for science and technology.

I have been arguing that Western society is   built through a long history in which modern science and technology are later developments, developments made possible by developments in non-scientific aspects of social existence, and reinforced by  the effects of science. Modern  nations in general might look as if they are based on science on of its ubiquitous and fundamental presence but it is more accurate to describe science and technology as a  central, inalienable  component of these societies rather than their foundations. I argue these societies  are based on particular social principles  and values, not on science in isolation from those values and not always as the origin of the values. These principles and values contribute to science and science helps to strengthen them, but they are not identical with science.

                                 Nollywood and the Nigerian Banking and  Oil Industries  in Relation to Humanpower Development, Technological Enablement and Political Initiative

29. Toyin : Such  skill is necessary but is it the absence of such skill that has led to the country not being able to account for the huge sums  of money allocated to developing the refineries and to Nigeria being largely  an importer rather than a processor of its own oil? What role does the county and its indigenised companies play in oil exploration and extraction? Are the limitations of the country in this area due more to lack of skilled personnel than  to inadequate political will and planning to develop and equip such personnel in the first place?

As it is, the only Nigerian industry  in which its citizens demonstrate originality that enables them stand out as a group in the global community  and earn significant income for the nation on that basis is    Nollywood, an example of the very story telling that Abba derides as not being central  to developing a modern society. This, to me,  is the only industry in which  Nigerians as a group demonstrate a globally marked level of originality.

Abba : Science and technology is at the core of what Nollywood does.  Will there be Nollywood if film and camera were not invented, for example?  Who invented these things...storytellers or scientists and engineers?  The arts industry in Nigeria (and anywhere else in the world) will be essentially non-existent if you take away advances in science and technology.  This is, of course, very obvious.

Toyin : The arts existed, and in a vibrant form, well before the advent of science and technology. Your own country’s most significant achievement is created by story tellers using technology to tell stories. Those stories cannot be told by scientists. Without actors, directors, producers, merchants, no Nollywood. Technology on its own, cannot produce Nollywood. It needs the vision of the artists and their financiers to create Nollywood. Without the story telling skills of the human beings, the technology and the engineers who created it would not produce Nollywood.

30.  Toyin : [Nollywood]   is also the most visible original export of the nation. I expect it is the highest foreign exchange earner of the nation from any original achievement of its citizens.The Nigerian oil industry, as far as I know,  is largely a buying and selling industry. Selling crude oil, buying processed petroleum. The banking industry is not known for any particular innovations, to the best of my very limited knowledge of  banking. I also doubt if Nigerian banks have a significant  global reach.

 Abba : Will there be oil and/or banking industry without technology?   I honestly do not understand why you are saying these things. 

Toyin : Oil is made possible by technology. Technology is vital to banking. But even though we have technology, oil/banking, what is the level of achievement there? Does technology of itself ensure achievement?

So far, the only group of people achieving at marked creative levels are the storytellers of Nollywood. The fact that the others are not performing at that level shows that technology  and science do not grantee success. The human element, represented by the vision of Nollywood actors, directors, producers, marketers, is what makes Nollywood. Technology  is the tool they use. That tool provides a medium for their vision but is not identical with that vision. If such vision existed in the oil and banking industries, we shall see how technology can  be more creatively  used by its non-scientist, non-engineer users.

Nollywood would do well to sponsor technological research and development  from their earnings, since scientists and engineers  often depends on other  sectors, including the arts, business and politics for funding. The key issue  is that of availability of sources of capital from any source and Nollywood can be a  key source of investment capital in indigenous science and technology which could be developed in relation to enhancing the science and technology used in Nollywood.

31. Toyin : To what degree [is Nigeria’s financial  industry] engaged in economic activities outside Nigeria and to what degree do they contribute to driving development in Nigeria?

Abba : This is not relevant.  Will there be banking and oil industry if we had no technology?  Will arts contribute at all in the development of oil and banking industries in Nigeria?  This is the crux of the matter.  Maybe you do not understand what I am arguing about.  For me, modern nations are built based on science.  There will, simply, be no oil industry if there was no technology.  There won't be banking industry if there was no technology.  There won't be Nollywood if there was no technology.

Toyin : You ignore  the role of financial activities in developing a modern economy, in enabling the financial lifeblood that energises the economy. Without such economic enablements, how will you develop a modern society, talk less finance the heavy investment required to develop modern science and technology?

There were banks before the development of modern science and technology. So, its not true that there would not be a banking industry if there no science and technology. Financial industries play a central role in building science and technology and science and technology enhance the efficiency of the financial industry.

My second argument is that the presence of science and technology in banking or any industry does not necessarily imply that that industry will play a striking role in developing a modern society, as demonstrated by the much weaker achievements of the Nigerian baking industry compared to Nollywood as well as the low level of achievement of the Nigerian oil industry.

In relation to the role of financial institutions in enabling development of modern societies I ask the questions in no. 32 below:

32. Toyin : Do [ Nigerian financial institutions ] fund genuine claims to scientific and technological achievement in Nigeria? To what degree do they fund the obvious success of Nollywood so that the industry can move beyond sheer volume to greater quality that can penetrate  global markets beyond what is likely to be its Black African fan base at home and abroad?  The stupendous budgets, which allied with a dazzling array of skills, enables Hollywood to rule the global film world might be based to a significant degree on  backing  by financial institutions.  What role are similar institutions in Nigeria playing in this crying need?

Abba : Digression.

Toyin : Not a digression because it relates to national development in the context of the use of technology. Such use will not by itself promote development. It has to be applied judiciously for that to be achieved.  Technology alone, as used by the banks, will not promote development. They need to invest in industries, artistic and technological. Such investment has a spiralling effect  on the economy, including science and technology. Who funds new technologies if not business and government?

                                      Critical Thinking as  Foundational to  Modern Societies

33. Toyin :  In sum, to describe any society as based on science and technology in the narrow sense of the physical and the biological sciences, talk less of claiming that African societies need to be based on science and technology to achieve modernity,  is a very limited understanding  of science and technology as well as of social  development and management, talk less of the development of civilizations.

Abba : I totally disagree.  You have not made a case for this at all.

Toyin : I have argued that science and technology are vital but as parts of a larger system including other skills and knowledge not from science.

34. Toyin : It is accurate, instead, to describe modern societies as based on critical thinking, based on evidence and on aspiration to social ideals that empower as many people as possible.

Abba : Good science is based on critical thinking and evidence (rigour)...there can be no innovation without such.  Science also, in general, addresses the needs of society.  So, what you say in this case is in line with what science is.  It is merely a basic, not ``accurate", component of what constitutes good science.

Toyin : Critical thinking emerges in democratic representation through a majority but it is not science. Critical thinking emerges in social and economic policy, but that is not science. Using science in assessing social needs is done in concert with those who provide the money to mass market technologies, fund science and integrate it into social programmes. Most of the time those people are not scientists.  They adapt science to human needs.

Critical thinking emerges in all disciplines, from the arts to the sciences. Its subject matter and methodological specificity  in science make science different.

35. Toyin : These approaches are focused on   rather   than on speculation or religious faith. Within this context, science and technology are harnessed in concert with other disciplines  in building and running these societies.

Abba : I absolutely have no idea what you mean here.  Science has no connection with religion.  I cannot see the connection.  Science applied to other (non-science) disciplines is still science.  What are you saying here?

Toyin : An omission in my sentence. It should read '  These approaches are focused on critical thinking   rather   than on speculation or religious faith. Within this context, science and technology are harnessed in concert with other disciplines in building and running these societies.'

I argue that critical thinking is centred on logic rather than speculation or faith. Science is also based on logic, but in building societies, it works with the critical thinking of other disciplines, disciplines   that actually use science without their  being science. The US army used electronic surveillance to find Bin Laden and guns to kill him. That does not make the assault a scientific enterprise. It was, rather,  one where science played a central role  in its   use by the military.

Hans Belting alludes to the tension between faith and religion in the influence of science on art in the histories of Islamic and Western civilisation in his A New Perspective on Florence and Baghdad, as described in this summary from the publishers:

Belting reveals the sensational fact that the “invention” of perspective in the West is actually due to a discovery that had already been made in the Arabic World centuries before the Renaissance. The Arab mathematician Alhazen developed an optical theory—in the middle of a culture largely devoid of images—which later formed the basis for Western perspective painting. Belting explains why Islamic art wasn’t influenced by the discovery, due to its religious, cultural and scientific contexts. He also explains why the effects on European art didn’t appear until later:

The rationalism dominant in the era when Arab science reached its peak could not bear fruit in the West until the modern period, since it was based on scientific experiments liberated from every kind of theological baggage. During the epoch that we in the West call the Middle Ages, the subjects of mathematics and astronomy were popular in the Arab world, which had not yet come under the kind of dogmatic constraints so prevalent later.

As Belting puts it elsewhere: “The Arab theory of optics was known at European universities by the thirteenth century, but it did not become a theory of pictures until the fifteenth century. The grounds for its transformation were not scientific but cultural.”

There’s much to digest here. Work like Alhazen’s came from a period when Arab societies were open to scientific inquiry that was remarkably free of theology in a way that Christian science and society were not. At the time of Alhazen’s development of the theory of perspective, there was simply too much “theological baggage” for the concept to yet begin to influence Western art.

One may also see Aldo Matteucis' critical Amazon review, although it doe not address what is being discussed here. 

36. Toyin : To describe the role of the arts in Nigeria,  and particularly of story telling,  as very limited or irrelevant in relation to building a modern society is to ignore the facts of history, as demonstrated spectacularly in the economic and larger social impact of Nollywood, the most significant industry in Nigeria in terms of originality in relation to global reach.

Abba : Like I stated above, there will be no Nollywood without science and technology.  Prove me wrong.

Toyin : My argument is that the existence of technology cannot by itself ensure the existence  and success of Nollywood, as shown by the relative performances of the Nigerian oil and banking industries. Is technology the most important component of Nollywood? No. It is the vision of the actors, writers, directors, producers   who USE the technology that is the heart of Nollywood, making their success possible.

If technology alone guarantees great success , the Nigerian oil and banking industries would have been much more  successful.

Posted by ifastudent at 5:47 AM ShareThis Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Followers

ShareThis

About Me

ifastudent View my complete profile

Blog Archive 2013 (1)

2012 (13) o October (1) o April (1) o March (4)

Science, Technology, the Arts and Nation Building ... Abba Gumel and the Culture of Dishonest Debate BOKO HARAM AS A MANIFESTATION OF

GLOBAL ISLAMIC FU... Science, Technology, the Arts and Nation Building ...

o February (3) o January (4)

2011 (25)

2010 (27)

2009 (30)

2008 (3)

2007 (42)

2006 (2)

FEEDJIT Live Traffic MapRecent Visitors