{UAH} Museveni not being scientific
|
11:30 AM |
No comments |
Needless to say, Komakech has a science background; so his views deserve due attention. As I read Komakech's very well-argued piece, I paused to ask: what exactly is science? I did a quick google search. As with many topical subjects, there is no one standard definition. But the one definition I found most apt is this:
"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
There are two key components in this definition. First, science is the pursuit of knowledge, both natural and social. Second, this pursuit is through a systematic process called the scientific method. The scientific method takes the form of rational and objective observation, empirical or evidence-based investigation, critical scrutiny, rigorous processing of evidence and arguments, before arriving at conclusions.
When confronted with a contentious social and political issue, President Museveni has always called on those around him to be "scientific". In other words, he wants whoever is engaged in a debate to be objective, rational and adduce evidence to back up their claims.
During the heyday of the NRM revolution, Museveni and his followers flirted with Marxism as a science of understanding and transforming society. Thus, it is a trifle surprising that the president's renewed obsession with "science" has a very narrow understanding, focusing on the natural science subjects, which he believes are useful while the "non-science" subjects are useless.
We know that President Museveni studied political science at Dar es Salaam University. We also know that he believes he has a very objective and rational grasp of Africa's problems, especially how to confront the problems of endemic poverty, ignorance and backwardness. Yet in driving a wedge between the natural and social science subjects, the president is being grossly unscientific.
First, President Museveni has no hard evidence to show that Ugandans who study natural science subjects are useful and those with a background in the social sciences and humanities are useless. We don't have any statistics to show that if you have a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture or if one read chemistry and physics at Makerere, you are more employable than someone who studied economics or sociology.
To the contrary, we have some anecdotal reports of people with natural science backgrounds, including medical doctors, migrating into the world of social work and business careers, as project managers, public health specialists, senior executives and brand managers, in search of decent remuneration. What is more, we don't have a clear picture of the exact number of graduates across the different subjects and professional fields.
Instead, the media has, for years, peddled the same figure of 40,000 graduates from universities and tertiary institutions every year. Assuming this static statistic is accurate, do we know how many are in the natural sciences or social sciences, and what percentage from each category goes on to find jobs?
Second, the president is being unscientific because the dichotomy between "useful" natural sciences and "useless" social sciences is at best false, if not outrightly misleading. World over, economists and people with a business background occupy key positions; they make strategic economic decisions. Our lives depend a great deal on their projections and forecasts. Yet, these are people who are not trained in the natural sciences.
Economics is a social science, although some economists want to think otherwise. In the US, like other social sciences, economics has embraced some of the tools and procedures of natural science. In the world of American social research, studying social phenomena has become so mathematised in the name of being scientific.
As a first-year doctoral student, I had a fair share of returning to the basics of algebra and calculus in order to understand statistics and probability. However, in recent years, the disciplines of economics, political science and sociology have increasingly come under criticism for straying from actual social science studies to blindly embracing natural science methods, which are ill-suited to understanding social problems.
Third, the president is being unscientific because the natural sciences and social sciences/humanities have co-existed for centuries, in obvious recognition that the world is both natural and social. The strict objective experimenting that takes place in the laboratories of the natural sciences cannot work in the social world where people's behaviours, preferences, and attitudes are always changing.
To be sure, the fascination with studying natural sciences has always been a part of the Ugandan society. For most parents, having their children take science subjects at high school has always been a big wish, and a source of pride.
Indeed, many students are forced by their parents and teachers to study chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, etc. A good many end up with poor grades! Still, many of the few who go on to study science courses and graduate from universities and tertiary institutions do not necessarily get thriving careers.moses.khisa@gmail.com
The author is a PhD candidate in Political Science at Northwestern University, Evanston/Chicago-USA.
Democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed Lamb contesting the results.
Benjamin FranklinUAH forum is devoted to matters of interest to Ugandans. Individuals are responsible for whatever they post on this forum.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or Abbey Semuwemba at: abbeysemuwemba@gmail.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment