yes there is a relation between culture and science. If culture involves the set of knowledge, beliefs and patterns of behavior, there is no doubt that science is also part of our culture, in the same way as the arts or the humanities.

Dear @Dr. Catia Cilloniz, I am correct to say the culture affect science ?

Dear Dr. Anthony Baidoo , it is an interesting and debatable issue.

Culture and science are interrelated to each other. Culture includes habits, tastes, customs, arts and manners. To perform any kind of an art one needs science to accommodate the art to provide the art with its tools and to improve its quality and performance. To paint for example which is art that forms part of a culture, one needs to know a lot about the usage of colors, the light effect etc,, which is all science. Laws of Physics could be applied in many applications that serve as settings for many cultural events. Culture includes as well a social group usually and psychology deals mainly with people forming that social group. So in general science in its applications serves the culture and also helps forming some cultural habits. The scientific technological progress led to using many hi tech gadgets and hi tech devices such as the computer ,which changed many aspects in contemporary culture such as relying more on E-communication in sending greetings etc.Those were just few examples among a lot that shows that close relationship between both.

Science does not help us in defining "human development", though it is capable of helping us a great deal in achieving it Science deals with "cause". Human development is "purpose", probably beyond the realm of science. There is in the modern society, a general understanding of what constitutes human development. It is the development of mind, body and culture. Development of mind in turn contributes to progress of science. What contributes to the development of mind also contributes to the development of culture, largely.

Dear Dr. Anthony Baidoo , please have a look in to the attached interesting article. I hope it will help you much.

i think sir culture is always different from science.In cultures certain things are there which we follow from our ancestore and it will away from science.culture is big community of people who believes there own concepts.it will always bond with our people same culture people same thing if he will seprate from his communie.It is love of our anciestor to us and i think we should follow him if it is right.

Dear Dr. Beemnet Mengesha Kassahun

Thank you for the insightful contribution to the discourse

Best regards

The culture could cause something break for some Research, because in some places the people don´t want to help. Also when achieve it the cooperation, they win, everybody with the results.....

The communication culture of science is logic and ethics; both should be kept in a humanistic balance, to avoid Dr. Frankenstein scenarios.

Yes, science is broader and more comprehensive than culture. Every science is a culture, not every culture is science. The bases of science and the foundations of science are universal, in which most nations and peoples participate, while cultures are different. Each nation has its own culture according to its identity and sources of culture.

I agree with Isam Issa Omran

two extremes, they are not related

I agree with Dr.Isam Issa Omran and Dr. Catia Cillóniz

My understanding is that culture is part of social sciences as it affects social relationship and behaviors.

Sciences for mankind as whole & any contribution for the scientific development helps directly or indirectly contribute for the mankind . It is in this line we have to view the culture . As already indicated that science rest with the mankind , every mankind has in their own rhythms & practices as the culture of his own & as such it is not possible to draw a line of demarcation between culture & science .

This is my personal opinion

I think the culture is an applied reflection of science

The principle of universality of science is more applicable to science branches like mathematics and physics. But it is becoming controversial in terms of social sciences. For example, in social psychology, cross-cultural studies has been particularly prominent in the last 50 years. Because what is said for an european individual does not apply to individuals living elsewhere in the World. One of the most important reasons for this is cultural differences.

Of course yes .

Culture embodies everything a society does including the dispensation of Science. Interestingly, many of the cultural traditions have scientific underpinnings. This has been the fulcrum of most of my research works that justifies the correlation of culture and science in biodiversity conservation management. Kindly feel free to read some of these interesting parallels in culture and science in those novelty works of mine on my RG profile. Best regards

Dickson Adom

SCIENCE COINS MODERN CULTURE

Dear Dr Anthony Baidoo,

I suggest you to see these links :

1)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315909/

2)http://www.preservearticles.com/201107058886/essay-on-the-relation-between-science-and-culture.html

3)https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-culture-and-society

Culture can potentially have a profound impact on education, but education can have a profound impact on culture also.

Societal culture is the combination of beliefs, customs, religions, arts, etc that exist in a constant state of flux in a society. Large societies most likely have multiple different cultures within them. E.g., the USA has hundreds of different societies within it, and hundreds of different cultures. The more homogeneous a society is, the more stable it’s culture is.

So, the culture of one society may value education above all else. In that culture, the more education you get the more likely you are to succeed. Some cultures may not see any value to education beyond what is taught within the local societal unit in order to benefit the individuals and society itself. In those areas, education might have little impact. There are a multitude of intermediary interactions.

The idea that education can impact culture can be important. For example, a society has an abundance of problems with water,. Either because of man-made or natural disasters, the drinking supply is of low quantity and/or low quality. A person from outside that society comes in with new ideas on how to build water filters and storage facilities. Suddenly, the quality goes way up. The quantity may also improve. Irrigation is now very much improved. The lifestyle improves for the entire micro society in that area. All because someone came in and gave away the practical knowledge that they received through education. That was very impactful. However, if that society was completely closed to anyone from outside their culture, that society will not have benefited from the education.

But, we must not let education trump all. Culture is important. Just because someone has educational ideas different from our own cultural ideas, it doesn’t mean they should automatically be embraced— but it doesn’t mean they should be ignored either. Consider and incorporate as appropriate. I realize there are an abundance of USA bashers on Quora, but I would end by saying that one of the things that has benefited us greatly is that our overall society is a melting pot of many cultures. This doesn’t mean we have arrived, but instead that we are still changing.

regards

Yes. There are relationship between science and culture. Moreover, between math and culture, too. If you interested in, you can search for "culturally relevant science", "culturally responsive math" and "culturally relevant STEM" (Julie C. Brown articles)

1. culture is the set of customs, rituals, values, knowledge, beliefs and patterns of behavior of nation and /or community or mankind,

2. Science is a part of the culture. So does engineering, technology, management

3. Science, engineering, technology, management promote the development of culture, obviously of enterprise culture.

4. Culture can facilite the development of Science, engineering, technology, management.

The direct relationship between Science and Culture is Scientific Disclosure

• Generally experienced scientists are educated, but not necessarily.
• There are also people who are educated but skeptical in science matters.

yes. culture influences the way science is done

I endorse the views of Dr. Beemnet Mengesha Kassahun mam

Science is a product of culture. Science is the comprehension of natural laws, while technology is the application of scientific knowledge in creating products or tools that improves lives. Culture provides the social platform and shared values that bring and keep people together. Science and technology are products of mans adaptation and exploration of nature through cultural practices.

The following link can provide you with more detailed information on the issue.

http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402011566

In addition on all my dear colleagues I only would like to add there is sth which should be consider: The culture of science!!!!!!!!!!!!! in many countries.

Check this link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315909/

Greeting

Some cultural norms and values are also guided by scientific way although they were practiced from many years before.

Yes, there is a relationship between culture and science. Science and knowledge increase the individual's culture, openness and aspirations

Culture can not be ignored

Dear Anthony Baidoo

There is a BIG relationship between culture and science in the behavioral sciences area (esp. developmental psychology). A notable part of our "culture" includes the prominent views (/ASSERTIONS) of old-time philosophers. THEY have "taught" us, directly or indirectly, that all that is innate is present at birth or in infancy. This is not only unproven, but also baseless and without any actual or real justification; MOREOVER this position, it can be well-argued, defies BIOLOGY (behavior must be biological functioning). Still this (the all innate-present-at birth-or-in-infancy assertion), is what is believed firmly and completely (and why psychologists believe so much occurs just by "learning"). It restricts even the consideration of definite (and very arguably probable) biological effects-in phenomenon: in particular, it forces one NEVER to think of psychological/cognitive qualitative shifts as involving ANY NEW INNATE GUIDANCE; it is not even possible for psychologists TO CONCEIVE of such a possibility (there is no frame in their mind in which to assimilate or accommodate this even as a concept much less a consideration). YET the very unsubstantiated belief they have (and it IS MERE BELIEF) creates an unwanted (and known to be false) absolute dichotomy between "the innate" (aka innate guidance) AND "learning" IN ALL DEVELOPMENTS BEYOND INFANCY. Ask any psychologist how BOTH "the innate" and the "learned" are involved in ANY development (illustrated in any instance of phenomenon) after age 2; they will NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE of BOTH being involved. Because: for that to be in-reality involves the idea of nature and nurture occurring in behavior SIMULTANEOUSLY (to be more precise: both aspects, literally, being clearly present in the SAME BEHAVIOR PATTERN ) ; BUT instead they always go back and forth, back and forth (over and over), between "this aspect has notable innate factors involved" and "these aspects are what is learned". NEITHER the "innate factors" NOR the "learning" is NOR the "environmental aspects" (for that matter) are well-specified. With regard to "learning": learning is always just one of a small number of very simple phenomenon, similar throughout life. E.G. classical conditioning, operant condition, habituation/sensitization, and a strange hodgepodge of very hypothetical and most often UNPROVEN (and even unprovable) vague "SOCIAL LEARNING". To THEM: these are asserted as ubiquitous and as much the same throughout life.

The outlook of modern psychology is also strongly (actually, completely) tied up with the notion that "the more advanced the organism, the less innate guidance there is" AND BELIEVING THIS IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE SENSE. Again this has no foundation or justification AND IS UNPROVEN. It is actually quite easy to argue that WITH INNATE GUIDANCE, BEHIND QUALITATIVE SHIFTS in cognition and cognitive abilities, there is THUS MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR LEARNING (a whole new field for learning opens up). (And, with this latter point of view, innate guidance and learning are NOT the dichotomy now firmly believed.) And "their" view, again, defies biology.

Also associated with the old-time philosophers is the notion (again, belief) that one can go into a hypothetico-deductive mode at will -- whenever it seems you may make some case; BUT, in reality, ALL NECESSARY INDUCTIVE WORK needs to be done in an area, BEFORE any firm if-then hypotheses are made (I like to say: one only does hypothetico-deductive work WHEN FORCED TO; I might add that this would be for clarity, closure, or some finality, when no addition observations will do this for you.)

Also, for modern psychology: THERE IS NO empirical directly observable overt behavior patterns, themselves (along with environmental aspects), as the proximate causes of significantly new behavioral developments. THERE IS A SERIOUS LACK OF EMPIRICISM HERE, throughout psychology. It is especially apparent when you find THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL BASES FOR QUALITATIVE SHIFTS in later childhood (i.e. developmental psychology is completely UNGROUNDED, if qualitative shifts in stages or levels are thought to exist).

In fact: It is IS possible for one to hypothesize directly observable overt behavior patterns behind/yielding even our prized most-"abstract" thought [ as an EXCELLENT, empirical alternative to "stuff" like "embodied cognition" -- where the thinking is JUST BY wild, unlikely, AND unprovable PRESUMPTIVE ANALOGIES to developments actually occurring in infancy; this false and bad way of thinking really just occurs out of desperation, when those who hold the pseudo-'assumptions' (BELIEFS) handed down through history (i.e. culturally) cannot think "outside the box" at all ]. My writings available HERE on RG *) clearly indicate HOW to free oneself; one should read this material just to free your thinking: i.e. getting it into the free and open range of possibilities your thought should be able to AT LEAST CONCEIVE OF, AND MAYBE even CONSIDER.

Start finding behavior PATTERNS, and start seeing things consistent with necessarily-applicable biological principles (e.g. homeostasis). Behavior is biological functioning. (If you ever see/hear talk of "behavior" without reference to a PATTERN, you should be able to see this as very poor thinking, with no progress for psychology, no good future.)

* FOOTNOTE: See:

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

And:

Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...

It is certain that there is such a close relationship between culture and science. As society develops, society becomes more aware of the importance of science in people's lives and seeks to benefit from the science and human services that facilitate the details of everyday life. Please look at pending file:

Well, there is a relationship between both fields. For example, we have the Age of Reason, it was highly influenced by the development of Science. Also, the industrial revolution was a direct result of the development of Science. All of these are cultures. So, science does affect cultures.

Even though I don't have an example now, but I am sure that cultures affect science. I mean, culture changes people. Therefore, it changes scientists. So, they see things differently. Hence, their research papers change at least in perspective.

Many thanks to you all respected RG Scholars for your rich inputs

Best regards

Anthony

One More: Without disagreeing with the foregoing, I do believe there is a reciprocal relationship between culture and science. Whitehead made an excellent case that the emergence of monotheism made the development of science far more likely. With one god, you either have a capricious jokester or a rational being with a rule governed domain - making it more likely to seek the rules. In the past, the West lagged behind Islam in many respects as there was less orthodoxy and a greater acceptance of new ideas. That changed for the worse with the rise a strident Islamic teachings. At the present science is under attack in the United States by politicians and others who simply don't care for many of its findings.

Science is unburdened by a cultural or political agenda. It's sole purpose is the search for truth. It will probably never completely arrive at that destination but in the process of pursuit it continues to be the most useful of our divergent endeavors.

Dear Douglas Raybeck

I certainly cannot agree when you say: "Science is unburdened by a cultural or political agenda." Just because science searches for truth, does NOT mean that science is true OR even that it is true to its subject matter (as I have put forth) -- and this comes from a big aspect of our "culture". [ When science is not true or correct, even its basic approaches or foundations, where do you think the biases (with the intimately associated wrong thinking or beliefs) have come from? (Answer: culture and especially, philosophy.) ]

But, I would like to point out that psychology (a supposed science) did not go wrong AFTER somehow deliberately accepting several views of philosophers; it started wrong FROM THE BEGINNING, without good thought and unknowingly to a significant extent (and it has never been correct , i.e. it has always been wrong in some of its major foundational bases -- of thought) because it accepted the unproven, arrogant, domineering views of philosophy EVEN BEFORE THE INCEPTION of the "science". Think about it: These views (of philosophers) were very prevalent for everything they seemed to apply to (for a very long time: centuries), even before psychology "came along" (e.g. manifest destiny).

Regarding psychology: The effect has been and is so great that psychology has been messed up (in basically the same kind of ways!!) FOR OVER A CENTURY. The "road to hell" is "paved with good intentions."

Regardless of the purpose or intent of psychology, this is the kind of thing that CAN HAPPEN even to a "science", AND DID HAPPEN. [The fact that I cogently and in detail describe objectively and empirically this situation with psychology (AND provide more-likely-true alternative views and hypotheses, acknowledging and accepting behavior PATTERNS as biological functioning * ), make my writings important. It would really be a shame if all people for whom my viewpoint is essential (if correct, which I believe it has to be) do not read my writings -- all available at or through researchgate.

P.S. One might be able to say: "Science attempts to be unburdened by a cultural or political agenda" -- but I truly even doubt that: for example, think of biases due to the time and space limitations of the "experimental" "laboratories" they have used (and still use); THIS RESTRICTS THEIR AGENDA and, VERY likely greatly restricts their views, or perspectives. And, this same strange, unnatural situation may support some of the wrong views of the "arrogant ones", "helping" to keep psychology "in the dark" for such a very long time (so far, forever).

We may have concepts and definitions of science which "make us" believe things that are not true, are. But, DO NOT ASSERT THOSE THINGS. All should know: one's concepts come into being as one's own (even as, in good part, "passed on" from others), and our concepts can and do change (individually and collectively, both -- and sometimes, in good part, separately) as life progresses (sociology not withstanding).

P.P.S. If people see me as correct, they should ACT like it (otherwise needed change will not be actualized); so far, it appears I have accomplished nothing (though no one has seen any noteworthy counter-arguments for the ENTIRE TIME I have been on researchgate).

* FOOTNOTE: Some day we all will understand that any given behavior pattern is best defined by the behaviors (patterns) SURROUNDING IT (/them) (always some overt at key times -- UNTIL AND UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE; and, nearly, if not always, also involving covert thought and thinking -- yet these well-related to previously overt behavior (AGAIN, UNTIL AND UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE). Yes, that's correct: behaviors will always best defined by other related behaviors (AND OTHERWISE they're defined by just the environmental aspects they are responses to). THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGY MANY OF US ORIGINALLY LEARNED. I am a true empiricist and true psychologist; with my perspective I have been able to use this classic definition of psychology, noted above -- that much having been "hoped for" correctly, even very early on in psychology. ARE YOU WITH ME??

Insightful following.

Brad -

I think we may be communicating past one another. The statement to which you take exception references science, not scientists: "Science is unburdened by a cultural or political agenda. It's sole purpose is the search for truth. It will probably never completely arrive at that destination but in the process of pursuit it continues to be the most useful of our divergent endeavors."

Science is a set of rules that can either be followed, stymied or cheated on. All of this has happened. Chess is a wonderful game, but people who cheat at chess (I have encountered two) are bad chess players, but that does not impugn the game. I would meet you in the middle by arguing that science is unburdened, but scientists are certainly not.

As far as the search for truth, I believe it to be an ongoing task and as I suggested, I do not anticipate its revelation. The best science can do is, as Hempel has pointed out, engage in a logical fallacy termed 'affirming the consequent'. To me the far more important issue is one of utility and I do find science (with all the weaknesses of scientists) to be the most useful tool we have.

Apparently, it is difficult to distinguish between some task or job and those who perform it, although examples and evidences that the one should not be identified with the other abound. Perhaps it's a matter of more careful use of language. Let's not talk about "the scientists" (plural) anymore as if all scientists are alike, even in fundamental matters. They are not, evidently. Worse: even "the scientist" (singular) or "the researcher" as idealized by e.g. philosophers of science and in students' textbooks on research methods does not exist. Surely there are global cultural reasons for this phenomenon, but also a host of psychological and sociological factors working on a rather individual level.

Dear Douglas Raybeck

You say: "Science is a set of rules that can either be followed, stymied or cheated on". With your statement, looking at it in context, you are clearly and strongly indicating the science has the correct "rules" (and we just need to follow them). How could anyone operating rationally and realistically make any such claim, especially about a field that can be shown to be clearly still IN ITS INFANCY? Psychology has not even "taken off" yet; psychology is a disparate mess -- as most EVERYONE knowledgeable has noted and seen as a serious matter. Your claim is very debatable at the very highest (foundational) levels (as I have tried to indicate in this thread and which I have proven in my writings available through RG

An interesting discussion. Following. I agree that Science and Culture are interactive, and its impact changes with time and the regions of the world.

Dear Brad,

Which psychology do you mean? Scientific psychology has gone through more than a century of highly turbulent phases, which I remember from the days when I was myself a student (e.g. the transition from behaviorist psychology to cognitive psychology and beyond). Moreover, current research psychology breaks down into a plethora of sub-disciplines which do not always have much in common.

But this situation is not much different from the situation in physical sciences: in both, we have competing theories, competing hypotheses, competing data sets, etc. This is exactly what you would expect in empirically-based disciplines. No one has to complain about it, unless you believe (without any justification up to now) that there is or can be only one true conception of the world, a mental facsimile of the world so to speak. If this is what you expect, or need, that's OK, no problem for me, go ahead, and build your own theory, but don't try to verify or prove it empirically.

For what psychology concerns, we further have to distinguish between Scientific Psychology (only interested in explaining how the human cognitive apparatus works, if you accept this meta-theory at all) and the many diverse "psychological" therapies and other applications of psychological and neuroscientific wisdom which purport to help people in need of such support. It is well-known from empirical research that only a handful of such approaches and therapies are really effective. Still, people believe in it. But ... maybe the empirical research demonstrating it is itself non-valid and controversial? Or, perhaps, it is just a matter of self-selection and acceptance? Nobody knows (for sure).

Dear Paul Hubert Vossen

As I said in one of my posts (above, in this thread): because of foundational false assumptions, the basic problems are true in ALL PSYCHOLOGY (all branches). Sharing unproven, unlikely, unfounded, unjustified, baseless assumptions (with a total inability to consider likely or even more likely alternatives) is true of every area (sub-field) of psychology. I have said this above, and spell-it-out in full details in my writings, all available through researchgate. [ I see psychology, through its history, to have NEVER made the most significant needed and important "transition": to see behavior [ patterns (

Dear Douglas Raybeck

There is a much more efficient, yet more thorough, way to "take on" or counter your position. As I pointed out in my last response to you: You say: "Science is a set of rules that can either be followed, stymied or cheated on" and with your statement, looking at it in context, you are clearly and strongly indicating the science has the correct "rules" (and we just need to follow them). Rather than bringing up how seriously disparate psychology is and how it has reliability (replication) problems with its research (most of it), one can provide a more general argument that basically covers ALL modern psychology research: This has to do with the real nature of science, which is well beyond simply what's known as "the scientific method" -- there are more crucial factors to ALL science in-operation, or science as-it-really-is:

One needs to appreciate that psychological science is not JUST: (1) the researcher defining things (behaviors and their 'triggers') as well as he/she can, (2) forming a hypothesis, (3) properly picking a sample from a reasonable population, and (4) "well-defining" experimental and control groups. This ((1)-(4)) is not enough, BECAUSE because all THAT hinges on proper definitions, starting with properly defining the behavior(s) (behavior patterns) of interest in the first place. THESE behaviors must NOT be so much defined by the researcher as DISCOVERED FIRST, before any behaviors are selected for study (using (1)-(4)). This involves rightfully conceptualizing behavior, with WELL-FOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS behind the conceptualizations.

IF ONE HAS BIASED OR SKEWED OR WRONGFUL, UNREAL ASSUMPTIONS or pseudo-assumptions, the definition of the behaviors of interest AND everything else that follows (all other definitions) will be fouled up irreparably. And, this bad situation is exactly the situation I see existing in psychology, throughout its entire history. (This well-accounts for all the problems pointed out in my last response to you (and more).)

With our extreme acceptance of engaging in hypothetico-deductive (if-then) thought when ever we want to (forming models as soon as we think we are well-imagining things), AND the degree to which we allow the researchers to just define things as they will, THEN any improper 'assumptions' held will implicitly or explicitly come to bear. I have identified several 'assumptions' used in all psychology which are likely incorrect and false: baseless, unjustified, and unproven. I have asserted that alternative assumptions (often the OPPOSITE of present assumptions used) are better justified, and biologically consistent.

While the assumptions come to bear more with some sub-areas of study than with others: to the extent that the false, wrongful, pseudo-assumptions are used knowingly (explicitly) OR implicitly, they will screw up all the research, rather quickly dead-ending it -- plus research will be inordinately disparate and impossible to "put together" into a grander view of overall behavior (we will not be able to coordinate such research with other research).

Reliability also will naturally suffer, too. Many see the use of statistics as way to claim (often WAY over-generalize) a lot about mere trends (this being true, even with replicable studies, with good statistical results). One must appreciate that the best research, like basic research in biology and other sciences (or in Piaget's work), does not even need to use statistics because the results so very often occur, as predicted, that it is apparent that the results are very meaningful (really "significant") and that statistical test results will add little to nothing to "the picture".

Thanks, Brad. Started reading your paper from January 1985 (RG) as well as another one I found via Google Scholar. Interesting writings about a kind of biologically-oriented general psychology. I wonder if you know and read Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol 4: Biologically Oriented Fields: Their Place in Psychology and in Biological Science of Sigmund Koch? Koch is well-known for his sharp criticisms of the possibility of a scientific psychology in general!

As I am currently an expert in a totally other branch of mathematical psychology, I humbly retreat from further discussion, as I could contribute next to nothing. However I may point out that we have more in common than you seem to recognize, e.g. the approach to psychology based on the concept of Information Processing Systems, e.g. Anderson's ACT model, going back as you probably know to the pioneering work of multitalent Herbert Simon.

Link to Koch 1962:

• https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Science-Biologically-Oriented-Biological/dp/B000GPC6D8/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522511690&sr=8-7&keywords=Psychology+A+Study+Of+A+Science+koch+sigmund

Dear Paul Hubert Vossen

I would also recommend the 328 pages of recent essay explicating, justifying the approach, specifying hypotheses, and comparing my perspective and approach with that of others. THESE RECENT COLLECTED ESSAYS may be found at: Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...

Oswald Spengler maintained that the difference between the mediaeval Arab/Persian Chemistry (i.e., Alchemy), and the Chemistry developed later in Europe - was due to the difference in [what might be called] their respective Cultural Souls.

In http://dlmcn.com/spengmaths2.html I discussed differences in the mathematics developed by different civilizations, attempting to relate them to their underlying culture.

http://www.dlmcn.com/oswaldspengler.html is a generalised look at Spengler's thesis and ideas.

Let us keep in mind that science is always politicized. The extend is largely determined by two things. The first is the extent to which it bears on major social issues or problems. The second is the extent to which powerful social actors or organizations have cost/benefits in the conflict surrounding the issue. Culture is the source of the values and organizational networks that become involved in the issue. Take for example the problem in Britain of bTB that results in the deaths of many cattle. The government and the Conservativs party have decided that the badgers that share the ecosystem with the cattle are the cause of the cattle infections. Consequently the governments program to eliminate bTB is to annually kill as many badgers as possible in the areas of high cattle infection. Mechanisms of killing the badgers is felt by a large number of animal rights persons as unnecessarily cruel. They are joined by many in the general population who simply like badgers since in historic culture the badgers have a very favorable image. In addition the government badger kill

program is not supported by strong scientific evidence. Consequently there has been an ongoing political conflict including farmers, scientists, Labor and Consertive parties, veternarians, animal rights groups, liberal social movements and several NGOs on both sides of the issue. As the issue continues year after year, cattle die, badgers are slaughtered, government costs rise, and bTB continue.

Many other examples exist and color the development of science a significant social endeavor.

Science is the knowledge. It is created in the culture,by the group of people for the culture. So they are inseparable.

Yes, science is (amongst other things) knowledge, but a lack of knowledge is not necessarily science's problem. It may be a social, an economic, a political or even a cultural problem, to name a few. Science can't be blamed for all problems in our world. Science has its own agenda, and that's good so.

Some scientists believe (i.e. have learned or taught to believe) that science is only relevant if it directly solves some of the world's problems. Is that so? No! It's a quite biased vision, and unnecessarily so.

• For instance, it can be made plausible by historical analysis (itself not solving any world's problems!) that certain early parts of mathematics were developed as quite useful tools for agricultural or even religious politics. To infer from it that mathematics itself is politics, or only relevant in the context of whichever politics, is an evidently false conclusion (cf. Aristotle's syllogisms).

Where do these confusing opinions come from? I suspect that one of the main causes of the confusion in this debate comes from the fact that within contemporary state and even private universities (i.e., what we call university nowadays! this wasn't always so) hundreds of disciplines and departments are bunched together, many of which belong to what we correctly may call science but far more others which only use some fields of established science's total Body of Knowledge (BoK) to prepare young people for jobs and professions intended to solve some of the world's problems or just to make a decent living later on.

• Distinguishing one from the other discipline or department is not always that simple in a "culture" within which scientific education and professions are to a large extend paid by the state and measured by their social-economic-technological applicability - which, ironically, admits that there is something to science which has nothing to do with solving urgent worldly problems, but rather with man's innate curiosity and need to understand and explain the world, including himself!.

Science is vey much influenced by politics MONEY!!!! In order to conduct scientific research, the scientists need money, lots of it. Government, private foundations/organizations and GOVERNMENT. I witnessed my professors conduct research so new and so out of their expertise because there were so many grants availabe for research into the issue -of- the month (hehe) Big pharma funds research for meds for "popular" diseases.

Maybe I can contribute to the discussion with our paper "Culture and Science" which you can find:

Research Culture and Science

Seemingly culture and science are two diverse and disparate disciplines... But the bottom line of what the human species want to do scientifically rationally is underscored by not only our culture, but socio economic well being, norms, traditions, educational and environmental factors... The bottom line... Is when a person is unsc or irrational, they claim...ooohhh it is our "culture " the mother of all executes....

The bottom line is ... people who live continuously in their own country and culture will get no chance to experience how it is and feels to live in another country with its own largely undisputed culture ... and will have have no chance to develop a sense of cultural relativity (because just reading books is not enough) ... and thus will always believe that their cultural beliefs and values are far superior to those of others living in other countries with their own culture.

Replace "country and culture" by "church and religion" or "ethnic group and tradition" or "scientific discipline and methodology" and you have the bottom line of eternal human dramaturgy up to the 21th century.

Again: if you don't have real experiences of the living of other people quite different from yours and/or don't have a genuine interest in their living, now and in the past, chances are that you think your own inherited world view and the world make-up imposed upon you by the likes of you are in some way "natural", and thus better than others.

That's what cultural philosophy teaches us. But ... who cares about cultural philosophy?

Yes but how does that relate to science. Unlike culture, in science, leanring and books can very well be sufficient. Science is transmitted across countries /cultures and , for e.g., mtehods of science do cross cultures. Isn't this forum evicendc of such??f

Dear Mary-Helen,

This seems obvious but it is not always like that. For example, during socialism, scientists in East-Europe and in the Soviet Union did not have the access to all scientific knowledge, notably to up-to-date scientific knowledge.

P.S. For more of my essays, beyond the large paper, "A Human Ethogram ... " and the recently written 328-page BOOK of Collected Essays, see:

http://mynichecomp.com/lastPosts.pdf

(I thought posting this in this thread was/is as good as any; it surely has to do with culture and science nearly all the time.)

Yes there is s relationship between culture and science. The many scientific inventions/knowledge have brought about tremendous change in a lot of cultural practices.

this link is useful

http://www.preservearticles.com/201107058886/essay-on-the-relation-between-science-and-culture.html

regards

Some of the respondents believe indeed that there is a (strong or weak, who knows?) relationship between science and culture.

Now the more interesting value-laden question for applied science and research becomes: "Should this be so, or does it imply, that modern science has not yet matured and decoupled itself enough from traditional culture?"

Or, to put it in a more positive tone: "Is there anything of value in a (still hypothetical) mutual relationship between science and culture?".

The problem with such questions is: we can't answer them objectively in any sensible way!

• Not empirically, because that would require that we would be able to set up at least one new scientific discipline which is completely independent from any traditional cultural influences and see if it blossoms or starves away. But .. which nations and politicians would allow such an experiment???

• Not theoretically, because that would just be a worthless exercise in utopia-building, perhaps fascinating literature, but not science in itself.

Without good culture science is zero.

Since science is "run" by man, and since culture is part of everyday life in every way and influences each one of us since the day of birth, I do believe it is not possible to decouple anythng from culture. It will always be related to and influence science even , unseen and unwritten. I don't think true, real objectiviy, even for scientists is possible.

OK, I believe anybody, who says, he or she believes that ... etc.

But here on ResearchGate we are devoted to RESEARCHING. i.e. finding out whether a belief is justified or not. Or, at least, sharing references to other research and researchers who have found out evidence for or against

Anybody there to provide such evidence for this question?

OK sematics semantics do you prefer think to believe? You're sort of confirming my point. Culture influences our every thought. Research on relationship between science and culture, I've yet to see. Lastly, there are many many questions on this site that are not research even if that it what it is devoted to-- this one for e.g

Hi Anthony,

Here are some items that may provide food for thought ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=L5R1180l7G8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=culture+of+science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc0Kme-7rbAhUIeKwKHZIrAQIQuwUINzAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ynCpAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=culture+of+science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc0Kme-7rbAhUIeKwKHZIrAQIQuwUIKzAA#v=onepage&q=culture%20of%20science&f=false

Have a great day!

--Adrain

Relationship between culture and science is the paradigm of one's legs. One leg is science, the other is culture and above stands the body of society; and both are needed for either walking or simply standing. Culture relates to behavior, and science relates to knowledge.

"Lastly, there are many many quetions on this site that are not research even if that it what it is devoted to ..."

That's exactly the reason that I will be leaving ResearchGate sooner or later. It's not fulfilling its mission any more! I am indeed deeply disappointed.

I think there is a relation between science, delusion, superstition and tyranny.

I didn't have any real study about this but there a hypothesis that the delusion, superstition and tyranny in anywhere results in no deducted reasoning and thus ends up to be somehow nonsense/non-scientific thinking/acting.

PS: I had real life experience about it.

Very insightful contributions. Thank you all respected RG scholars

Yes, Culture and Science are interrelated because culture is the way of life of people, e.g. belief, tradition etc, while Science is the systematic way of acquiring knowledge through logical process and procedure. Therefore, culture and knowledge are related and also work together to the development of the society.

@Olufemi Oladipo : "... culture and knowledge are related and also work together to the development of the society."

Surely, they do, often, but not always.

• Nobody knows, how often they support each other instead of being in conflict. But everbody knows, or should know, the tragic cases of Galileo and other famous scientists who had to pay with their lives just because they proved culture to be false, and science to be true, or at least less false than culture.
• Culture being less true than science wouldn't be a problem if culture would be generally tolerant and open-minded, but as we know too well this isn't the case.

Culture is what is transmitted from generation to generation by natural education in the family and in the society. It happens mostly unconsciously. This would be splendid if all things transmitted what be of the highest possible quality: intellectually, emotionally, and ethically.

Alas, looking at the world at large, over all times up to the present, there seems to be a simple rule: to every good thing transmitted you can find a bad thing transmitted.

• No matter what kind of things we are speaking off: bad habits, bad customs, bad concepts, bad opinions, bad convictions, bad religions, bad leadership, bad laws, bad etc.

Again, this wouldn't be a big problem, if cultural heritage - individually and collectively - would occur at a conscious and conscientious level so that bad developments could be easily spotted, confirmed and reacted upon. But, again alas, this isn't the case.

Perhaps, the problem with the word "culture" is that most people only see or mean the positive side of it and blend out or turn off its negative aspects and occurences. Like the word "quality" which is mostly understood as "good quality", although everybody knows that there can be "bad quality", too.

Now, certainly, some people will hasten to claim that the same thing applies to science: there may be bad science along with good science. The BIG difference, however, is that science can only occur consciously, so mechanisms of self-control are build into the process. This doesn't apply to culture, as far as I know, at least not to the same degree, and that explains why we have to suffer from so many cultural tragedies, documented very well by historical (especially political) research.

Nowadays everything has been studied interdisciplinary. So why not a new term and new subject should also be get added like "Cultural Science"

With best regards

Yes

The sciences and the arts often seek to answer very different kinds of questions about human nature, the nature of the world we inhabit, and the relationship between the two .

One of the many subjects we had to study already in the sixties was called "Cultural Psychology". Do you mean something like that, dear Kumar? Or, when using the phrase "Cultural Science", do you mean something more generally and abstractly, e.g., a branch of philosophy, studying "science" as an aspect or expression of any culture which has developed far enough to have its own "scientific culture"? Certainly this would lead to a rather relativistic or pluralistic conception of science, in the sense, that there might be all sorts of "sciences", and no one could be called better or more advanced than the other, which would imply, that there can be no genuine concept of truth and progress in "science".

I think, culture is larger than science so science is a part of culture.

A scintific man is not necessarily a cultivated man but a cultivated man has a certain level of scientific knowledge.

Can one give a comprehensive definition of culture? It carries different meanings to different geographical locations. I tried to give some definition and to understand the relationship of science and culture. After hours of discussion with Late Samarjit Kar, a noted science journalist, we arrived at the following definition'

"Culture, in one sense, is a special kind of human expression pertaining to human values, ethics, morals, art and understanding of nature modulated by science."

Will be happy to receive a more comprehensive definition.

Science is the manifestation of culture

[edited 2018-11-15]

Culture is a dead end (says Alexander Grau 2018, see link below). If this culture-pessimistic view is correct, there can't be any relationship with science, unless you believe that science (in all of its variants) is dead, too.

Personally, I am a bit sceptical about this position, although Grau's analysis is convincing in many points, also raised by many other historians of culture.

But: cultures, like natural languages, change and eventually vanish only very very slow, so there is still enough time for researchers to document what is still left of natural cultures and folklore.

The future may be - in the view of Grau - a globalized culture-less society, in which each individual creates and exposes its own pseudo-culture ("pseudo" because culture and individualism are natural opposites).

Link to book:

• https://www.amazon.com/Kulturpessimismus-Ein-Plädoyer-Klampen-Essays/dp/3866745826

Link to review:

• https://www.amazon.de/product-reviews/3866745826/ref=acr_dpx_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&showViewpoints=0

culture

nouncul·​ture | \ˈkəl-chər \

Definition of culture 

(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time popular culture Southern culture

b: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organizationa corporate culture focused on the bottom line

c: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristicstudying the effect of computers on print cultureChanging the culture of materialism will take time …— Peggy O'Mara

d: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations

2a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training

b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skillsa person of culture

3: the act or process of cultivating living material (such as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient mediaalso : a product of such cultivation

4: CULTIVATION, TILLAGEWe ought to blame the culture, not the soil.— Alexander Pope

5: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education

6: expert care and training beauty culture

===========

If definition 1d is used then science is part of culture taken in that sense but if 2b is used than science is not part of culture taken in that second sense. The author of this thread seems to use this second definition of culture while those taking the 1d definition science is a sub-culture.

Depending on what do you understand as science, the answer can be either affirmative or negative. The definition of science is so broad that it can be almost everything, depending on which definition you choose.

For example, science as a tool is not a cultural thing, it is just a method. You can follow it or not. But it is exactly the same in every culture.

But, if you see science as a product of that tool, it can be perfetly cultural, as there are many interpretations (and therefore psychological biases) about what that product means, especially when some identity (individual or grupal) is involved.

So is it just a matter of definition, of language? What about research? What about knowledge? Is there the same ambiguity here? If so, it makes little sense - IMHO - to proceed with this discussion, because it is not a question that can be solved by research, let alone by theory. Indeed it is rather a matter of opinion, of belief, of linguistic conventions. Rather boring and better left to people who are active in what is called "social media".

Culture and science: both expressions of the same: the cultivation of reason, the cultivation of human thought, different expressions of human intelligence.

Cultura y ciencia: ambas expresiones de lo mismo: el cultivo de la razòn, el cultivo del pensamiento humano, distintas expresiones de la inteligencia humana.

Hello,

Maybe you are interested to read following manuscript, in which, we have linked the culture and scientific performance.

Is culture a contributing factor of strong science? Preprint Is culture a contributing factor of strong science?

Culture defines the way of being of a people or a society. It shows its values, its aspirations and in that context science is a very elaborate expression of culture. Now, you can be a scientist without a great culture, it is not common, as well as being a very cultured person without being scientific. But this does not influence that one (science) is part of the other. The fact of contributing for science, which is reasonable is a cultural indicative expressed in faith in development through organized knowledge through methods, measuring instruments and reliability in the results.

In the United States a huge amount of scientific research is funded by the government. To gain grants, researchers need to focus on the governmentally preferred areas of research.

I'm sure there is a lot of money available for anyone studying the possible negative effects of climate change.

And I am equally sure that there is very little money available to study the possible POSITIVE effects of climate change.

As a culture we are being pushed to look at the subject from a certain angle and our science is being harnessed to PROVIDE THE FACTS that support that view.

I have a friend who works for the government and he can get you some well paid guest speaking spots providing you are saying the things he wants you to be saying.

Science may deal in FACTS but we humans deal in TRUTHS

And when the facts don't match our truths, it's To Hell With The Facts!

Too broad question.

Understanding of science

Learning of science

Teaching of science

Investment in science???

Rationality as a base for culture. Also, science is arised as the base for rationality.

Therefore, science is a really important factor for training culture.

Anthony,

I believe there is a relationship writ broadly. To the extent that a culture privileges rationality, so will it lean toward the scientific. Between the 8th and 14th Centuries, Islamic countries generally lead other cultures in the development of mathematics, astronomy and even optics. Then came an increasing fundamentalism and a narrowing of world view and interpretation that hindered science and free exploration. Something very similar can be said of Hinduism and India.

To the extent that a culture permits or encourages free exploration of ideas, its science will blossom. To the extent that exploration is hindered by dogma and impeded by orthodoxy, scientific development will wither.

Be well,

Doug

Although the language of science is often specialized, and thus inaccessible to nonspecialists, science and culture are not different entities: science is part of culture, and how science is done largely depends on the culture in which it is practiced.

for more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315909/

In the sense of modern science, some cultures in history couldn't cultivate scientific research. For example, animist or similar cultures like American indians didn't apply scientific research because they felt they already a part of a nature as a whole. This kind of perception about themselves and their surroundings reduced curiosity about nature, diminished explorative, investigative thinking.

Culture can foster or hinder scientific thinking. Philosophy can foster or hinder scientific thinking, too.

What about the reverse? Can (too much of) scientific thinking hinder a broad philosophical outlook on our existence and a all-inclusive understanding of our own cultural heritage and dependence?