In one typology sciences are sorted into the natural (like physics or chemistry), the human (say history or sociology) and the integrative (think
ethics or philosophy). Traditionally, so long as each stays out of the other’s way, everybody should get along fine. Today’s trend, however, is to
break down academic silos, and encourage inter-disciplinary dialogue. So perhaps there is some sense is asking a moral theologian to offer
some thoughts on a gathering of physicists. I am amazed by the pure scientists who expand our understanding of the physical world either by
chasing the smallest particles of the microcosmos or by navigating the expanding universe of the macrocosmos. Think of the physicist who
assists the anthropologist in determining the ancient Filipino diet by measuring the isotopic values of residual calcium in hair and teeth, or the
scholar who measures the fluctuations of solar radiation at the equator in comparison with other zones. But, think too of the physicists who
inquire into the physicality of matter, or seek a theory of everything. Are such concerns not better left to philosophers, whose questions about
physics are anyway, what is that which is (being) and what is that beyond what is (metaphysics)? Sensing a recurring pattern across several
fields, neuroscientists propose that this is due to the structure of the mind, which understands itself only by understanding its surroundings –
leading to the question, how much is matter mind, and how much mind is matter? That’s what inter-disciplinarity does: it breaks apart the walls
between and among the sciences, and in the process allows greater insight into difference and discovery of similarity. Beyond the micro and the
macro, other physicists occupy the cosmos in-between, or middle earth, if you will, using it as a playground or laboratory for developing devices
so commonplace today; from the conventional principles of gravity, mechanics, hydraulics, and so on physicists offer new applications in the
optics of sophisticated cameras, the sonics of military hardware, the haptics of smart phones, etc.
I caution students that for moral analysis to be commensurate to human dilemmas, as many angles as are necessary should be engaged.
Holistic analysis demands that all bases be covered, and while the sequence may not matter, which one chooses as starting point is always
critical. I suggest that for any science the moral component is indispensable: what should the Filipino physicists’ vocation/role be in light of the
broad range of reforms the country faces today? Is it to be true to physics as a pure science, in the mode of Einstein, who relativized the
absolute, or Hawkings who sought to explain the history of time? Or is it to be true as well to physics as a human science, in the mode of our
forebears who filtered water through stones, developed techniques for mummification, combined gravity with hydraulics to cultivate terraces,
chiselled granite to grind grain, balanced boats with outriggers, chose materials calculatingly in designing their nets, and invented tools
maximizing whatever lay at hand? Rudimentary as their physics may have been, their objective in using it is as contemporary as today – to put
science at the service of human needs. The greater the human need, the more focused the purpose should be: that is what transforms physics
from a natural science to a human science. Just maybe, the history of Filipino physics suggests what the future of physics for Filipinos should
be. Enjoy your Linkfest.
Fr. Dionisio M. Miranda, svd
President, University of San Carlos
