CHAPTER VIII

Great development and change in modern science and technology is one of the basic features of modern times. Their advance by leaps and bounds has altered the world picture of science and the human modes of thinking. This change has a number of dimensions.

In the modern history of science, the mechanical determinism of classical mechanics occupied a dominant position for about three hundred years. It constructed a closed and simple cosmic model, in which all things move exactly and regularly. The model believes that if the original state of a system is known, in the light of the universally applicable laws of dynamics, we can deduce all the states it will undergo. Thus, Laplace complacently declared that so long as we realize the positions and velocities of all the material particles in the world, a "holy calculator" may exactly know the past and the future of the world. People generally believe that the mission of science is to provide certain knowledge, and that science is able to do so completely. In disputing with Bohr, Einstein said "God does not play dice" which is to say that nature is completely certain and that science should be also.

Under the control of such a cosmic model and view of nature, the only aim of science was to dissect exactly, and draw the properties of the whole from the parts of an object. But as the properties are restricted to the parts, the relations and transformations between levels are beyond the view of researchers.

After the uncertainty principle had been put forward in 1927, the American mathematician, Godel, proposed the theorem of incompleteness in 1931 — perhaps the most important achievement in research regarding uncertainty. The theorem states that in any consistent formal system containing elementary number theory, there are propositions which cannot be verified, i.e., neither the proposition nor its negation are able to be proven in the same system. The theorem shows that even mathematics cannot provide completely certain knowledge, for invariably there are propositions in any kind of theory — information theory, cybernetics, dissipative structure theory, fuzzy mathematics, grey system theory, etc. -- all of which have indissoluble characteristics of randomness, probability and uncertainty. People now know that the world itself is not as completely determinate as had been assumed.

Evolution is another mainstay of the scientific thought in the current century. As a scientific theory, it is a product of the 1850s. In the most creative years, in several realms of science there appeared scientific theories of evolution at almost the same time, the most influential of which were Clausius’ second law of thermodynamics, Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, and Marx’s materialist conception of history.

In 1850 Clausius pointed out that heat cannot flow automatically from low-temperature objects to high-temperature objects, namely, heat conduction is irreversible. Fifteen years later he introduced his greatest contribution a physical state function that had nothing to do with concrete elements — entropy (S). In terms of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics can be expressed in a closed and isolated system as: ds/dt>/0, which means that the variation of entropy of such a system will never be less than zero; this is the famous principle of entropy increase. By the conception of entropy, natural evolution could be interpreted through the intrinsic change of a physical system. But the theory of evolution in the sense of Clausius is in fact a theory of retrogression. In his opinion, nature is retrogressing from lower entropy to higher-entropy, namely, from order to disorder; finally, the whole universe will be in that most disordered state of thermal equilibrium or heat death. Obviously, he was mistaken to extrapolate the principle of entropy increase from a closed system to the whole universe, which resulted in an opposite conclusion to Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. However, by virtue of his conception of entropy, science has been able to evaluate the physical world and the direction of the physical events, and time is no longer merely the parameter of motion but has become a physical reality.

The tides of physical revolutions in the 20th century have been pounding incessantly at the cornerstone of classical physics. Relativity was the first to launch the attack: the unity of space and time means that the existence of matter and its property are inseparable. When the mass-energy relation regards mass as a form of energy, it in fact regards material being as a kind of process. Quantum Mechanics revealed the wave-particle duality of matter. This expresses the interpenetration of space and time, includes the equivalent procession of energy replacement and the unity of space, time and mater, and finally endows the world with an essentially dynamic form. In the picture described by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, th whole universe is involved in a kind of dance of the universe of energy. The existence of latent energy and the introduction of probability change the direction of scientific research from an object-centricism to "relations" and the whole.

However, despite the fact that science has admitted change as a basic fact of nature, in classical physics it was nothing but limitless exchange of energy, and the arrow of time did not exist. At the heart of scientific thought, the varied and colorful world was still attributed to different appearances of a certain simple basic "element". The intrinsic character of time was eliminated; irreversibility was but an illusion resulting from the deterministic development of the original state; evolution was but the development of being. As Prigogine notes, the classical order was first particle, and second the second law of thermodynamics: being is prior to evolution. Science always intended to surmount the external world and get to a most reasonable but timeless world; its ideal was to trace back to the origin of the world and the fixed laws under change. This conviction endowed the physical laws with objective, absolute and eternal significance.

Today, scientific research has begun to move from being to evolution. In the large span of history, this is a change from a space-culture to a time-culture. Time has become the central problem of modern science, for the existence of irreversibility elevates evolution to the ontological-level and endows entities with a basic lively and restless character.

The birth of the theory of dissipative structure has made it possible to tie physics to evolutionary biology. An open system originating from a state of non-equilibrium, by way of the order of fluctuation, changes the retrogressive arrow of thermodynamics to the direction of cosmic evolution. Bifurcation theory introduced the history into physics. Non-equilibrium state physics, especially the modern theory of dynamics, has greatly deepened the understanding of evolution. From Newton’s force, to Einstein’s energy, to entropy in thermodynamics, physics is exceeding the level of conservation and the transformation of "quantity"; it is entering the level of creation and the evolution of "quality". At this latter level, the arrow of time adds to past dynamic time an arrow, direction, or evolution in the material word; the micro meaning of irreversibility has been discovered, revealing the mechanism of the evolution of a system; and the arrow of thermodynamics has been reoriented to cosmic evolution. Recent developments in theory have broken through the conception of time-arrow, and advanced a completely new system "time" about -- internal time. Around this, a complicated structure of space-time is in formation.

Both non-equilibrium state physics, and the modern theory of dynamic systems are altering in marvelous manners science’s picture of the world. The rise of modern theory of dynamics marks a second unity of dynamics and thermodynamics, this time on the grounds of thermodynamics. Its "second law" is now seen as supreme, so that motion is united with evolution and complexity embraces simplicity. Starting from the new conception of space and time regarding the world as a constantly evolving active organ, all rigidity dissolves, fixed bounds disappear, and laws are no longer unique or eternal: we can now transit from one description to another. Reversibility and irreversibility, motion and evolution, are neither diametrically opposed (as in Newton mechanics), nor in contradiction to each other (as in statistical physics and quantum mechanics), but concordant and unified. Once science has understood the relation and difference between internal and external time it will achieve a new level of understanding. In this greatly broadened theoretical frame order and disorder, degradation and evolution, and dynamics and thermodynamics are complementary. With evolution seen as the core of the material world marks science has entered into evolution; thenceforth time on time will be the central problem.

The problem of the relation between humans and nature, subject and object, or objectivity in natural science, is the basic problem in understanding and changing nature, as well as the most fundamental philosophical problem in natural science. The classical scientific system centered around Newtonian mechanics, understood "objective", firstly, as being independent of our processes of understanding, and, secondly, as being able to be described changelessly (or approached infinitely); the extent that knowledge conforms to the thing-in-itself and that subjective effects were eliminated are the yardsticks of the objectivity of truth. Such objectivity was abstracted on the grounds of the classical cosmic model and principle of knowledge; it was closely related to the European cultural background of which classical mechanics was the key form.

For the original model of classical mechanics a celestial body can be taken as a mass point, with position and velocity (or momentum) of itself. A specific process is an objective event taking place in space and time, as well as the result of certain known physical laws. As this is logical (or conceptual), self-enclosed and independent of the action of humans the object is observed and meditated upon, but not engaged or transformed. In such a relationship the subject does not act on or change, the object in any way; it simply reflects the properties and relations of the object itself in the subject’s mind.

In truth, the object of natural science is nature or the laws of nature itself; what is abstracted is only the objective aspect of the object. On the side of the subject, the process and form by which we acquire knowledge -- human activity and any cultural characteristics -- are abstracted out. Thus, things become pure objects, which are treated as concrete and real objects, whose totality is believed to be the world, the material for research. Correspondingly, the view of nature is that of an enclosed object-world; this set of natural causal relations is in fact but an idea we produce. This self-enclosed world of knowledge leaves no place for subjectivity: the extent of the participation of the subject is reduced to measurements of objectivity as well as of error. Such an abstraction regards the things in human thought and practice as the object itself, but leaves the reflection and investigation of such activity and its effects to philosophical epistemology. This was necessary and reasonable during a certain stage of scientific development. But it creates the illusion that we can talk about world-in-itself without a subject, or its perceptual activity (including constructs of pure thinking). Such an illusion and the mind-matter dualism in the Western philosophical tradition have verified each and strengthened each other. This created a "Godlike" epistemology and the objectivity principle of classical science.

In giving up the mechanistic universal picture, modern science has given up as well such "Godlike" epistemology. Through the process of evolving a completely new order of theory it becomes ever clearer that science expands centrally around the human being. It can be only by, and of, human beings. Hence, it is completely meaningless to describe in abstract terms the world in its original form.

By means of the radically changing scientific rationality itself, the 20th century revolution of science and technology has replaced that of the 17th century. Whereas that earlier tradition of objectivity believed that knowledge is acquired through passive observation and by way of formal reconstruction of the objective mathematical structure of nature and society, modern scientific epistemology believes that the object of under-standing is constructed or transformed to some extent in the research activity of subject. Quantum mechanics indicates that the method of research itself has changed the observed entity. As the state described by physicist is the interaction between observer and observed object, the results of observation depend on the method of measure. This was made clear by the physicists Bohr, Heisenberg and Wheeler: The quantum world is not like an orderly machine; the answer acquired depends upon question asked, the experiment constructed and the instrument chosen, we ourselves inevitably become involved in the question: "What is happening?"

This being the case, what appearances will be presented by phenomena or events will depend on the instruments we choose -- on the questions and the probable forms of answers to the questions we choose. What we are observing is not the world itself, but the world revealed by the method we are using to inquire into our problems. The form of asking the question becomes the focus for the creation of the appearances observed.

It is self-evident that scientific reality is not random subjectivity, for then reality would not be reality nor would science be science. The subjective result is solidified as scientific reality: first it is restricted within a practical method; next it is "assimilated" by being stated in language; then it is related to conjecture and expectation in the research process in order to attain the character of explanation, interpretation, test and verification, calculation, etc., and thereby to emerge from other kinds of phenomena. It is a description not only of knowledge of scientific achievements, but of subjective action itself. For concepts, laws and theories the subjective contribution is more obvious, for it includes free creation in thought and the human pursuit of unity, simplicity, aesthetic feeling, etc.

From quantum mechanics to information theory, cybernetics and systematology to non-linear science, ecology, etc., it becomes ever clearer to scientists that their work expands centrally around the human; it can be only of and for humans, which is to say that we are participating in the universe we are describing. A human is the human-in-the-universe; he or she describes the universe from inside and by his or her own means. The universe also is of humans for it appears both in the form of the result of human action as humans objectify themselves in science and embody their human nature in their creation.

Around the Second World War, a group of new and developing sciences appeared in succession, such as management science, operational research, systems engineering, decision theory, design theory, etc. These sciences differ from the traditional ones, such as classical physics, chemistry, biology, etc., or so-called "entitative sciences" which have their own specific objects of study which are believed to be independent of human’s activity. These new and developing sciences have no specific things as their objects of study, nor do they aim at understanding, and grasping certain objective truths as do the entitative sciences. Rather, they organize or standardize human action for a certain purpose and in accord with specific realms of human activity. Such sciences study some "man-made" phenomena, which depend mainly on human aims or intentions so as to be brought into the living existential environment. Such so-called "operative sciences" are distinguished by having considerable purposiveness. What is learned by them is not the "what" or "why" of changes of things, but "what should we do?" Because the purpose of these sciences is to direct human’s action in a certain realm, and what is studied are "man made phenomena closely related to human action," the American scholar Herbert A. Simon called them "sciences of man-made things."

Besides the above-mentioned sciences, we have a different understanding of modern technology from the traditional one. In recent years, scientific research has inclined to more and more narrow conceptions; it stresses only skills, technical ability and method, instruments, machines, etc., but ignores the human and social aspect. In response some scholars would give important place in modern science to the social relation and control aspect of technology. This lays particular emphasis on organization and especially on planning and management, including the management of research work, the professional organization of technical specialists and scientists, control of pollution and other regulatory systems against abuses of technology, etc. In contrast others would place the human aspect mainly in the cultural realm, including views regarding values, goals and varied convictions regarding customs skills and scientific activity which affect the designer’s and inventor’s creativity. In this way technology includes not only skill (software, hardware), but also culture and organization.

In present research even such basic traditional sciences as chemistry, biology, physics, etc. are to a large extent subject to control according to social needs and outlooks on values. Hence, we should consider their effect on both human beings and society, rather than purely seek truth. Here seeking truth and seeking effect, scientific reality and value, are no longer opposites. This is an additional challenge to classical science and technology beyond the scientific revolution which resulted from relativity and quantum mechanics.

Traditional science and epistemology both saw the aim of knowledge to be understanding truth so that the central problem of epistemology was the possibility of understanding which in turn problem of how to acquire truth. In contrast, the aim of "operative" or technical knowledge is not to understand objective truth, but to direct people to attaining predetermined objectives. The problems to which these sciences pay close attention are not true or false knowledge, but whether a certain strategy of action or program design is effective or not.

The entrance of validity and value into science is another great revolution in the mode of thinking of modern science and technology. It tells us that science is no longer a purely rational activity independent of human being’s life and interests, but is situated in human practice and life world, closely bound up with human pursuits and needs. Hence, Marx said that all kind of science concern the human being.

In accord with the change in scientific conception, there is a change also in the understanding of value from subjective to objective.

It is a very popular view that the difference between reality and value is identical with that between object and subject. Truth or reality is seen as objective being having nothing to do with human being. In the final analysis value is nothing but an expression of subjective human feelings, attitudes, interests, etc.; it is non-cognitive and cannot be verified logically; and therefore there is no objective or generally valid standard of appreciation or evaluation. The error in such a point of view is to have understood action in terms of an abstract human being as a purely subjective being, so that human behavior is a purely mental activity which cannot grasp the essence of value in the context of practical life. It reflects also a one-side approach to objectivity: in the light of the mechanical materialism grounded on Newton mechanics, it considers the physical and chemical processes of natural things to be the entire objective process, so that eliminating the subject and its action is a measure of objectivity. Accordingly, it excludes value from the objective realm for it belongs neither to physical nor chemical processes, nor can it be reduced to physical and chemical properties and grasped by such language.

As stated previously, what the category of objectivity stipulates is the independence of the reality indicated by the objective action of the subject from his or her subjective consciousness, feeling and will. To understand this stipulation we should start not from the side of the thing-in-itself, but of the practical relation between subject and object. Firstly, the activity of the human being pertains to objective social history. This objective process has two basic forms: i.e., nature (mechanical and chemical) and the goal-directed activity of the human being (Lenin’s words). The former is the basis of the latter, which has the greater immediacy and reality. For the human subject, only when the former process has entered into the realm of social-historical activity and formed an organic opposition with he latter can it present its objective reality and law and be understood and put to use by us. Furthermore, such a "presentation" appears in a subordinate and remolded form, i.e., in a form restricted by structure, good and patten of activity.

Secondly, the objectivity of knowledge and understanding depends upon their conformation to objective reality. The outer world that is independent of the consciousness of human beings has supplied the ontological prerequisite and possible space for the creation of the object, and practical-epistemic activity has supplied the thing-in-itself with the mechanism and condition for it to change into an object-for-me. Thus, "conformation" is actually a sort of coupling between the subjective grasping form and the presenting type of the thing-in-itself (possibility space). Therefore, epistemic objectivity needs also to be grasped at the level of practical relationships. We should not lose sight of its human characteristic, which in brief is precisely the social relationship. This is a crystallization of all the practical human achievements of social history, including all practical elements, which includes the rationality of activity. This is the basis of the objectivity of value.

With regard to the objectivity of value we will consider the following two aspects.

1. The basis of the objectivity of value lies in the objectivity of practical human activity, including the objectivity of the subject.

Taken as a whole, human socio-historical activity differs from the physical and chemical processes of nature, because it intrinsically possesses purposiveness (N.B. human purpose has not been referred to before). Seeking, creating and realizing value are its elemental contents, the same as for objective process. Such a trend toward the realization of good and of value constitutes the intrinsic dynamics of change and is the source of development.

Advanced system theory holds that the fundamental difference between the activity of an organic system and of mechanical change driven by external forces is that the former is self-regulating and self-organizing. The structure of this activity is goal oriented of itself and has regulates itself in order retain a steady state. In this the functional requirement of self-preservation and self-development is normative. This illustrates the objectivity of values and their role in the self-development of material systems most broadly taken.

As subject and object are the bearers of practical activity, the objectivity of the object is naturally a prerequisite to the objectivity of value. But this is not the sole prerequisite, because value is a subject-object relation, not an objective attribute. Especially, this relation implies that the object conforms to or satisfies the subject; it is integrated into the yardstick of the subject, where the subjective factor is the leading one. Every type of idealism and earlier materialism took the human being as an abstract subjective being, regarded human activity as purely mental activity, and "explain(ed) their behavior with their thinking not with their needs" so as to conclude that value is subjective. Therefore, in order to understand the objectivity of value, beyond the objectivity of the socio-historical process and of the structure of subject-object interaction, the objectivity of subject needs also to be further elaborated.

The human being or subject is a kind of objective social being. It is distinguished from natural beings by its "possessing goal, requirement, self-consciousness, etc." and "existing for itself", but it remains a kind of objective being. The natural instincts, essence, ability, existential condition and activity of the subject are all definite social properties; they are objective, not appearances of random subjectivity. Human needs -- whether physiological or mental, natural or social, material or spiritual -- all are radically related with social being and have an objectivity and necessity independent of the subjective will of human beings. In a certain sense, the objectivity of the subject is not only the precondition of the objectivity of value, but also the final form of its assumption and embodiment: the objectivity of value ultimately will express itself and be verified by means of the objective change of subjective existence and development. Conversely, only by understanding the objectivity of value can one fundamentally grasp the objectivity of the subject, for the most basic and definitive property of subject is "to exist for itself", and this is subordinate to the value category.

Furthermore, the process by which value is created and realized is at the same time the process by which law is grasped and applied, it is the process by which law enters into play, and it is material social process. Thus we may say that the value relation is the objective relation between the human being and nature, between human beings and society, or between human beings themselves.

2. Value evaluation also requires an objective measure.

The specific needs and interests of human beings and society, as well as the means for satisfying them, all have their socio-historical roots and practical objective foundations. Value consciousness, norms for evaluation, etc., which appear by means of ideology are "practical relations and activities. Their generation and relations are purposive expressions of the socio-political organization." Such expressions may be real or illusory, but it is not possible to decide by subjective desire alone the foundations and preconditions upon which people make judgments of "should" and "should not", nor within the realm of real knowledge and practice what objects are displayed to the subject, what it does or can bring about in the subject, and what it obtains or can obtain from the object through understanding and practice. In brief, the socially and historically formed aims, expectations and ability of the subject, the practical possibility offered by the object and environment, and the coupling of the both is an objective structure. Moreover, through the feedback mechanism of the interaction between activity and the result of activity, it can guide the direction of activity and usher in new possibility. Thus value judgements and evaluations also have objective and generally valid norms.

Going further into the objectivity problem of the norm of evaluation, we should be aware that, despite the difference between the language, norm and object in understanding the problem of objectivity, they have the same roots. That is to say, all have a social character and can be regarded as the rationality of practical activity.

Marx said that "man’s perceptual activity" is not individual but social and includes both production and association. Association is, so to speak, the concentrated embodiment of the socio-historical nature of practical activity. It is expressed in social relations, in shared activity within the community, class, nation and even the world. Through production and association which carries forward the accumulated achievements of production and association of past ages (material productive forces, social living conditions, social organizational forms and norm, objectively shaped knowledge, language, etc.) people form a certain socio-cultural relation, participate in it and mould themselves. Thus men can move beyond animal instinct in their relations to others and ego consciousness appears. This is followed by objective attitudes to external objects and people as well as the more generalized patterns of ethics, morality, aesthetic standards, etc.

The key point here is ego consciousness, which essentially is a kind of social and practical consciousness. The reason why ego consciousness is able to be aware of itself is simply that it can reflect upon itself as distinct from others, from its actions and from object or result of activity. Thus, it is possible for ego consciousness to reflect upon or criticize its knowledge and behavior from a third party or historical point of view. From this follow such things as observing, judging, thinking, reasoning in terms of common forms of human rationality man, expression through a common language and symbols, and evaluating and examining the results of knowledge in terms of standard criteria approved by the subjects. The so-called human characteristic of objectivity is to a large extent just such social characteristics of knowledge. Similarly, ethically normed behavior and a generally valid value system can be formed because of such participation in the common activity and association, the understanding of each other and reflection upon various social phenomena and goals, needs, expectations and behaviors, with understanding and conscious evaluation. In brief, from the practical point of view we can see that the objectivity of the true, the good and the beautiful all originate from the same roots, namely, all are modes of sociality which have general validity and rationality in practical activity.