This is the English version of the book “Filsafat Sains dalam Konteks: Interpretasi Filosofis untuk Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia” published in print form by UMM Press in July 2023. In translating the title of this book, the term ‘Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia’ is translated into English as ‘Indonesia Higher Education’ rather than ‘Higher Education in Indonesia’ because it tends to refer to specific or unique aspects of higher education in Indonesia, while ‘Higher Education in Indonesia’ is a more general term that encompasses the entire landscape of higher education in the country. 

Foreword

The book “Philosophy of Science in Context: Philosophical Interpretation for Indonesia Higher Education” discusses the philosophical interpretation approach used to explain the concepts of the philosophy of science more easily. Philosophy of science is often considered difficult to understand by the general public; therefore, this approach is applied to make the language of philosophy of science more accessible and down-to-earth. Through this topic, I aim to bring the philosophy of science closer to society, especially the scientific community, using the approach of philosophical interpretation.

Furthermore, in accordance with the desires of Indonesian society, I also wish to see an improvement in the quality of higher education and scientific research in Indonesia. Therefore, it is important to integrate the concepts of philosophy of science into higher education policies. A profound understanding of the philosophy of science can help develop students’ critical thinking and scientific competence, ultimately shaping a new generation that is more skilled and open-minded. As a result, education in Indonesia can continue to grow and reach higher levels in facing increasingly challenging global challenges.

The inspiration for this book arose from my experience teaching Philosophy of Science in the Doctorate Program of Chemistry Education at the Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) in the first semester of the academic year 2022/2023. Philosophy is crucial for the doctorate program as the foundation of science. A good understanding of philosophy by doctoral students enables them to see the relationships between disciplines and confront their complexities. As a new lecturer at UM, I studied the syllabus and referred to previous books. Given that this was my first experience teaching this course, I had to study the syllabus and refer to books written by previous lecturers.

Therefore, I bought and read several related books. However, after reading them, I realized that the material was often presented in a theoretical manner and relied heavily on quotes from other works. This approach lacked a connection between reality and philosophical theory, making it seem more vague and less relevant to the actual situation in Indonesia. This realization sparked my desire to create a more effective and engaging approach to teaching the Philosophy of Science.

The philosophical interpretation approach

The approach of philosophical interpretation is used to bridge the gap between the philosophy of science and practical, contemporary topics that are relevant to the issues faced by education, research, and society in Indonesia. This method is practical for comprehensively explaining phenomena or concepts by using philosophical concepts as tools for understanding. This book explores key concepts in the philosophy of science, such as epistemology, metaphysics, and ontology, through the lens of the philosophical interpretation approach.

Epistemology, metaphysics, and ontology play a vital role in research, aiding in understanding how knowledge is acquired, the nature of reality, and the essence of existence. Epistemology informs the development of suitable research methodologies; metaphysics allows the consideration of social and cultural factors in research, while ontology provides insight into the world and its inherent problems, fostering a deeper and more precise understanding. The readers will be introduced to the thoughts of renowned philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Karl Popper, and Thomas Kuhn, and topics relevant to the philosophy of science, including research, education, and life.

The philosophical interpretation employed in this book enables readers to grasp the concepts and theories of science more quickly. I present easily understandable writings as a starting point for in-depth discussions on theories of the philosophy of science and relevant figures. These discussions focus on topics related to education, research, and life. From these discussions, philosophical concepts and theories are expanded and elucidated, including theories of the philosophy of science and the philosophical figures most relevant to represent the writings.

This book covers a wide array of topics in the philosophy of science, including addressing profound questions such as determining truth and the role of theory in molding scientific knowledge and examining how science impacts everyday life. The book also assesses how celebrated philosophers and scientists have influenced the way we understand and investigate the world.

This book is intended for students, professors, and the general public who are interested in understanding and appreciating the philosophy of science. A strong academic background in this topic is unnecessary, as the dialogical approach facilitates understanding concepts and theories that underlie scientific knowledge.

The topics discussed in this book are only a tiny part of the phenomena that occur around us. Many other interesting phenomena can be explored and connected with the philosophy of science as an effort to humanize the philosophy of science itself. However, these phenomena can be examples of linking various aspects of life with the philosophy of science in order to enrich our thinking and understanding.

This book, designed as a discussion material for the philosophy of science course, covers 32 topics related to the philosophy of science that will be explained and discussed throughout 16 lecture sessions at the Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). The main goal is to ensure that the material presented covers various important aspects of the philosophy of science and remains in line with the university’s lecture structure.

The selected topics cover various important aspects, such as education and research, intelligence, wisdom, and critical thinking. Furthermore, these topics also include achievements and recognition in the field of science, the relationship between politics, science, and communication, as well as the integration of science, religion, and philosophy. Other topics include perception, attitude, approach to communication, and scientific and interdisciplinary contributions.

Some other interesting phenomena related to the philosophy of science include ethics in scientific research, the influence of technology on science, as well as the challenges and opportunities arising from the development of science and technology. These topics can also be considered for inclusion in the discussion. By including these topics in the discussion, we can broaden our understanding of the role and meaning of the philosophy of science in a broader context. However, due to limitations, I am only including a few aspects to be discussed, and these examples can be used as a starting point to expand the discussion.

Throughout the journey across various topics, readers are given the task of writing essays related to the discussed topics, allowing them to explore and develop their understanding of the philosophy of science. These tasks will also help readers connect theoretical concepts with everyday life and practical applications in research, education, and life.

I need to emphasize that my background is not in the field of philosophy. I am not a philosopher, but merely someone who wants to delve into and understand various topics in order to gain a broader perspective. I am a trained chemistry professor who thinks at the level of knowledge yet has not reached the level of insightful intelligence, let alone wisdom. I still have much to learn!

I hope this book can bridge theory and practice, enabling students or readers to understand better and appreciate science’s role in our lives. By following this dialogic approach in an engaging intellectual journey, it is hoped that readers can gain new insights and enrich their thinking about the world of science and philosophical interpretations in viewing higher education in Indonesia.

Philosophy of science and scientific practices in Indonesia

Utilizing my extensive experience in higher education, I have been entrusted with the responsibility of serving as a professor at the Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) in 2021. An overwhelming sense of gratitude arises as I return to my homeland after 27 years of schooling and pursuing my career abroad. Throughout that period, I spent more than 20 years as a lecturer at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), and for 12 of those years, I served as a professor in the field of material chemistry. Considering the current circumstances, I believe that there are still ample opportunities to improve and enhance the quality of higher education in Indonesia. Therefore, in this book, I endeavor to provide a fresh perspective by using the lens of the philosophy of science to discuss higher education in Indonesia.

The philosophy of science is not only a conceptual foundation for knowledge but also an important tool for criticizing and improving misguided scientific practices. In Indonesia, the need for a philosophy of science to guide the development of knowledge and intellectualism feels very important.

Indonesia is a developing country at the forefront of scientific and technological challenges. From climate change to various other global issues, these challenges require a strong scientific understanding and an open attitude toward criticism and review. However, if we do not have a deep understanding of the philosophy of science, which includes understanding how science works, how data is analyzed, and how new knowledge is formed, we may be at risk of falling into misguided scientific behavior.

Misunderstood scientific behavior can take various forms, ranging from research conducted without proper ethical considerations to biases in data interpretation. The philosophy of science provides us with a framework to identify and critique these mistakes. By better understanding scientific methods and ethical principles in research, we can promote better and more responsible scientific practices.

Furthermore, the philosophy of science can help broaden our insights and expand our understanding of the world. It encourages us to always be skeptical, ask questions, and seek answers while accepting that our knowledge is always evolving. In the context of Indonesia, this means creating a dynamic and open academic and intellectual environment that is receptive to change and innovation.

As a nation, we must invest in the teaching and research of the philosophy of science, ensuring that this philosophy becomes an integral part of our scientific education. By better understanding the philosophy of science, we can promote correct scientific behavior, advance our knowledge, and help Indonesia become a leader in solving global scientific and technological challenges. The philosophy of science is not just a theoretical matter, it is the key to healthy scientific and intellectual development in Indonesia.

Acknowledgments

I want to express my sincere gratitude to Husamah, a lecturer in the Biology Education Program at Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM) and a doctoral student I supervise at the Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). His contribution in providing constructive feedback on this book draft has been invaluable and helped me improve and enrich the book’s content. I also extend my thanks to the doctoral students in the Chemistry Education program at the Universitas Negeri Malang (UM), who have inspired me to write this book. Without their support and encouragement, the writing of this book may not have gone well. On this occasion, I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Muntholib, who, together with me, taught the Philosophy of Science course at UM. Our discussions and collaboration in this course have provided many insights and new understanding. Lastly, I would like to thank the entire team involved in the production of this book, including the publishing team who have contributed to and supported the book production process. Without the help and support of everyone involved, this book would not have been possible.

What is science?

According to the modern definition, science is a broad discipline encompassing both natural and social sciences. In the framework of this book, “Philosophy of Science in Context: Philosophical Interpretation for Indonesia Higher Education”, science refers to the systematic study of the physical world and the universe. A broader approach includes social sciences, where scientific methods are used to understand human behavior and societal dynamics.

Nevertheless, the boundaries of the definition of science often become a topic of debate triggered by philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge and how we acquire it. This is not just about the differences in methods or practices between natural and social sciences but also about philosophical approaches. The philosophy of natural science focuses on ontological and epistemological questions about natural phenomena, while the philosophy of social science emphasizes ontological and epistemological questions that are specific to the context of social phenomena.

Essentially, science involves systematic and methodical research on natural and social phenomena. Two main approaches are used in carrying out scientific methods: inductive and deductive. The inductive method involves observation, hypothesis formulation, hypothesis testing, data analysis, and evaluation of results. Meanwhile, the deductive method focuses more on the development of theories and mathematical models using tools such as mathematical analysis, computer simulation, and deductive reasoning.

Science can be divided into two main branches: natural sciences and social sciences. Natural sciences, such as physics and biology, and social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, utilize both of these methods in their research. Theoretical science, which relies more on deductive methods, and experimental science, which relies more on inductive methods through experiments and observations, complement and collaborate with each other in both branches of science. The combined efforts of these two methods help deepen our understanding of the natural and social world and advance scientific knowledge as a whole.

Reproducibility and dissemination of knowledge are important principles in science. This principle ensures that research and experiments can be repeated and verified by peers, which is an essential part of the scientific validation process. Therefore, clear and unambiguous explanations in scientific writing are crucial. In addition, collaboration among scientists from various fields is also a significant factor in driving progress in science.

Science often plays a key role in driving the discovery and development of new technologies that benefit society. Conversely, technological advancements also facilitate the discovery and development of new and more efficient methods in scientific research. However, science is not exempt from ethical aspects, where every study must be conducted in a responsible manner and respect the law, environment, and interests of the community.

Thus, science is not just about writing and clarity but also involves various other aspects such as observation, experimentation, theory development, logic, interaction with technology, and ethics. All of these aspects together play a crucial role in advancing our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

In practical terms, observation and experimentation provide an empirical foundation for science, allowing us to gather data and facts about the world around us. Meanwhile, the development of theories and mathematical models helps us understand and explain the phenomena we observe.

Logic and reasoning play a key role in science, allowing us to draw conclusions from data and evidence as well as validate or reject hypotheses. The interaction between science and technology is a two-way relationship: science helps drive technological innovation, while new technologies often open up new opportunities in scientific research.

The ethical aspect of science asserts that research must be conducted to respect the law, the environment, and the interests of society. This includes principles such as honesty in reporting results, protection of research subjects, and consideration of the potential impact of research on society and the environment.

Thus, science is a complex and multidimensional process that involves various aspects and disciplines. Understanding science in this broader context can help us understand how scientific knowledge is constructed, formulated, and understood. It also highlights the importance of a holistic and interdisciplinary approach in scientific research and education.

Philosophy of science in context

The philosophy of science studies the uniqueness of science and aims to provide an explanation of how science constructs a picture of the world that can be objectively and rationally justified with the real world. Scientists do not need to study the philosophy of science to solve problems in their field of study, but learning the philosophy of science can provide a broader understanding of knowledge and our world.

The philosophy of science is a fascinating field that delves into the heart of science itself. In its journey, the philosophy of science reveals the uniqueness of science, its foundations of knowledge, and the important features that distinguish it from other human activities. Furthermore, the philosophy of science examines the close relationship between theory and empirical data.

One philosophy of science’s main goal is to explain how science works to create a credible and evolving picture of the world in line with new empirical information discoveries. This includes how science generates relevant explanations for the success of scientific accounts in answering important questions.

However, practicing scientists often find themselves more interested in solving concrete problems within their field rather than seeking a philosophical understanding of science. Nevertheless, studying philosophy of science can provide a deeper insight into how science works and why it succeeds in answering many questions about our world.

There is a debate about whether studying the philosophy of science is beneficial or detrimental to practicing scientists. Some argue that knowledge of the philosophy of science can distract scientists from their research. However, there are also those who believe that understanding the philosophy of science can help scientists build objective knowledge and support the laboratory’s research process.

Scientists can live their professional lives without knowing the detailed methodologies in their field. However, if they have a deeper philosophical understanding of these methodologies, they may realize that some commonly accepted methods can appear strange and difficult to use in the long run.

It is important to not only study science itself but also to have a comprehensive understanding, including the philosophy of science. Doing so can give us a broader understanding of knowledge and our world. Delving into the philosophy of science can open up new insights into how we understand and explain phenomena around us.

The philosophy of science encourages us to reflect on science and how it works. It invites us to delve deeper into the process that involves theory, empirical data, and the uniqueness of science in answering important questions about our world. By engaging in debates that encompass various perspectives on the role of the philosophy of science in the lives of practicing scientists, we gain a richer understanding of how science develops, adapts, and faces new challenges.

As scientists, researchers, or even individuals interested in science, expanding our horizons through the philosophy of science can inspire us to see the world in a different way. We may discover new ways to address problems, develop theories, or formulate stronger and more coherent hypotheses.

In the journey of uncovering the mysteries of this world, the philosophy of science invites us to take a step back and reflect on how we develop knowledge and how we apply it in our daily lives. Through critical thinking and reflection, the philosophy of science can become a catalyst that helps us understand science and the world better, bridging the gap between theoretical and practical knowledge.

Finally, by studying the philosophy of science, we are also able to appreciate the role of science in uncovering truth and influencing our lives. The philosophy of science helps us understand the importance of scientific methods, ethics in research, and our responsibility as individuals engaged in the pursuit of knowledge.

Like an adventurer exploring uncharted territory, the philosophy of science guides us through the labyrinth of scientific complexity, offering valuable guidance and insights. It helps us answer fundamental questions about science, such as what makes science successful, how we measure progress in science, and how we can improve our methods and approaches.

In a universe full of mystery and wonder, the philosophy of science invites us to continuously pursue knowledge and wisdom, challenging us to question our assumptions and to continue learning throughout our lives. In the process, we will become wiser, more skilled, and more capable of facing the challenges offered by endless knowledge.

So, the philosophy of science broadens our horizons and enriches our thinking about knowledge, the world, and our place within it. By delving into the philosophical concepts that underlie science, we will discover new ways of seeing the world, understanding the complexities of the universe, and unearthing the extraordinary potential of human knowledge.

The philosophy of science also invites us to consider how science interacts with other fields such as technology, politics, and ethics. We are faced with challenging questions about how science affects public policy, how we can ensure our research is conducted ethically, and how we can manage the impacts of science on society and the environment.

In addition, studying philosophy of science will help us recognize the importance of collaboration between fields and understand how interdisciplinary approaches can generate more effective and innovative solutions to the complex problems faced by the world today. Therefore, a grounded philosophy of science is needed.

1 – Professorship

There are four important events in my career journey as a lecturer. Firstly, my appointment as a professor at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in 2010. Then, the honorary title of adjunct professor from Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) in 2017. Next, the acceptance of the Letter of Decision (Surat Keputusan) regarding my appointment as a professor at UM by the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Nadiem Anwar Makarim, took effect on August 1, 2021. And the last important event was my appointment as a Guest Professor at Osaka University in 2022. In this appointment, an important term is expected, ‘professorship’, which refers to the qualities and authority of a professor. This authority cannot be evaluated solely based on numbers, such as the number of publications and citations, as it can only be seen through the perspective of peers.

If we refer to the term professorship, it refers to professionalism and profession. According to my knowledge, a professional is a group of individuals who are disciplined, adhere to ethical standards, consider themselves and are accepted by the public as having specialized knowledge and skills in a widely recognized body of learning that comes from research, education, and training at a high level and are ready to apply this knowledge and practice these skills for the benefit of others. In my opinion, this definition is suitable for someone who has become a professor.

Higher education is a platform for the development of knowledge and research, where professors play a vital role in carrying out teaching, research, and community service tasks. However, sometimes the criteria used to assess a professor only focus on their dedication in the academic and research fields, without considering their overall achievements.

The appointment of professors should involve a comprehensive evaluation of various aspects of their abilities and contributions. Achievements in teaching include the ability to effectively deliver material, motivate and inspire students, as well as develop relevant and innovative curricula. Achievements in research include the ability to produce quality scientific works, obtain research funding, and collaborate with other researchers in relevant fields. Service to the community includes activities such as counseling, consultation, and meaningful dedication to the wider society.

On the contrary, promotions based solely on dedication reflected by numbers focusing on quantity, such as the number of publications or projects completed, may not reflect a professor’s overall quality of work and contributions. Therefore, for professors to achieve accomplishments in various aspects, it is important for the higher education system to have policies supporting academic values. These policies include holistic performance evaluations, which incorporate various aspects of achievement in the assessment for promoting a professor and recognize achievements beyond academia and research, such as leadership and creativity. Emphasizing quality over quantity is also important, especially in valuing research outcomes that impact society and science and prioritizing teaching quality that can inspire students.

In addition, creating an inclusive and collaborative academic environment is highly necessary. This includes providing opportunities for young faculty members to develop and foster cooperation between disciplines and sectors. By valuing overall achievements, we will create a generation of more effective, innovative, and impactful professors for society.

It should be understood that being a professor is a position. From this position, it is expected that someone can develop the field of knowledge entrusted to them. Because this is a position, it is expected that a professor can act like a small institution to carry out their duties. This can be seen in advanced countries such as Japan, Europe, and the United States, where a professor leads a small unit responsible for developing education and research. In universities in Japan, this unit is called Koza. A Koza has a professor-led laboratory and consists of associate professors, assistant professors, postdocs, B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. students. With this, the process of developing education and research can be carried out more directly and in-depth because each Koza specializes in a specific field of study. From here, the professorship can be realized and developed well.

The journey of a professor in achieving career excellence by developing seven important mentalities, including: emphasizing quality over quantity in teaching and research, dedicating oneself to teaching knowledge for the benefit of others, setting an example by maintaining academic integrity, constantly updating knowledge and being a worthy mentor, serving the field of knowledge not just administrative positions, being innovative and creating new discoveries, and paying attention to ethics in research and higher education. By combining these seven mentalities, a professor can create a conducive environment for learning and growth for themselves and the students they teach and mentor.

Nevertheless, this writing is essentially a self-reflection. At least through this writing, I became aware of the great responsibility that is carried as a professor. I am reminded to always hold on firmly to ethics, integrity, and dedication in research and education for the benefit of society and the advancement of knowledge. Through this career journey, I will strive to become a better professor by significantly contributing to teaching, research, and service to the community.

Philosophy of science regarding professorship

The importance of professorship, professionalism, and dedication in the field of education and research is crucial for the development of knowledge. Some theories in the philosophy of science and the thoughts of philosophers can be related to this topic to provide a better understanding.

One of the concepts introduced by the philosopher of science, Karl Popper, is the process of conjecture and refutation. Conjecture refers to the formation of hypotheses or scientific theories based on initial thoughts or observations. These hypotheses must be testable and falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.

Refutation is the process of testing and attempting to argue against hypotheses or theories proposed through experiments, empirical testing, and critical analysis. If a hypothesis is successfully refuted, scientists will create a new hypothesis that is better and more aligned with the available evidence. This process will continue iteratively, continuously improving and strengthening existing theories.

In this process, science does not seek absolute truth or certainty but rather the best fit with existing data and evidence. Therefore, science is tentative and always open to correction and improvement.

In addition, the process of conjecture and refutation also involves collaboration among scientists. They evaluate, criticize, and help refine the theories and hypotheses proposed by their colleagues. In an academic environment, this occurs through the publication of journals, seminars, and scientific discussions. This process ensures that science develops critically and objectively while avoiding bias and dogma.

Thomas Kuhn argued that paradigms in science consist of a set of beliefs and practices adopted by the scientific community during a specific period of time. A professor plays a crucial role in preserving, developing, and changing paradigms through the process of scientific revolution. Therefore, professorship reflects one’s ability to contribute to the development of paradigms in their field of study.

Michael Polanyi introduced the concept of “tacit knowledge,” which refers to knowledge that is difficult to explain explicitly and is often acquired through experience and intuition. A quality professor teaches explicit knowledge and helps students develop tacit knowledge through guidance and inspiration. Professorship reflects one’s ability to mentor the next generation by providing guidance and inspiration.

From the description, it can be seen how important professorship and professionalism are in the field of education and research. A professor has an obligation to uphold ethics, integrity, and commitment to research and education. The theories of philosophy of science and the thoughts of the philosophers mentioned above can help explain this perspective and depict the important role of professors in advancing knowledge.

As academics, professors must continually sharpen their skills and knowledge to maintain the relevance and quality of the education they provide to their students. In the learning process, a professor must be able to tap into their students’ potential and teach them critical thinking skills while encouraging them to seek new knowledge.

A professor must constantly create and develop new knowledge through innovative and high-quality research. This will help to advance science more broadly and make a meaningful contribution to societal development.

To achieve these goals, a professor must collaborate with other academics, industry, and the government to create an environment conducive to the development of science. The dedication and perseverance of a professor will be the primary determinant in achieving success and progress in science.

Professorship, professionalism, and dedication are highly important in the world of education and research. Professors have a significant role in advancing knowledge, nurturing the next generation, and contributing to the progress of society at large. Therefore, it is crucial for professors to continuously enhance their own quality, uphold ethics and integrity, and maintain a commitment to research and education.

Philosophers associated with professorship are Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Polanyi. The scientific philosophy theories linked to this topic are conjecture and refutation by Popper, paradigms in science by Kuhn, and tacit knowledge by Polanyi.

2 – Principle of conducting scientific research

As a researcher, I have observed that many researchers do not follow proper epistemological processes and research methods, resulting in their research outcomes lacking impact on the advancement of science and technology. Therefore, eleven principles need to be considered by anyone who is or will be conducting scientific research.

The first principle is etiquette and intention as a researcher, which serves as the foundation for all other principles. As a Muslim, I refer to the etiquette demonstrated by past Muslim scholars, which shows that a researcher should always humble themselves for the sake of Allah SWT. This helps to have a positive impact on the quality of thinking.

The second principle is research competency and preparation. Preparation and training with good intentions and desire are very important for conducting research. A researcher must be familiar with the principles and basic concepts of the field they are engaged in and build on that field. Research can only be carried out with researchers, infrastructure, and research funding.

The third principle is to know the field of study and master it. Every researcher in a specific specialization has an obligation to understand the dimensions of the field in which they are fully involved before they begin writing about the topic. Researchers must have a good understanding of the researchers and major works in their field of study. Researchers must also acquire knowledge and practice in their field of study. The use of common sense alone is not sufficient.

The fourth principle is scientific research and its benefits for humanity. It is important for researchers to consider the benefits obtained from their work and the contributions their work will make. Is their work related to general or specific issues? Is their work aimed at addressing existing problems or for anticipation? Is it just a waste of time and not beneficial?

The fifth principle is arranging, mapping, and classifying the appropriate research fields. Researchers must explain the importance of properly arranging and mapping research fields. The selection of research fields is not only the responsibility of the researchers but also the institution that directs the main focus areas.

The sixth principle is to gather information with awareness and prior thinking. The beginning of any literature study aims to collect all information related to the relevant research and to understand all relevant literature based on its strengths, weaknesses, and the author’s orientation. However, researchers must be cautious in reviewing literature because misinterpretation can lead to errors in drawing conclusions.

The seventh principle is to analyze the intellectual material, sequence, and framework. After gathering the material, researchers should thoroughly examine it, strive to obtain an assessment from it, and frame it by organizing it chronologically while considering its formation, development, and changes. The research framework should follow the research methodology.

The eighth principle is scientific integrity. Scientific integrity is highly important, and researchers are expected to be exemplary in terms of truth and integrity. Researchers should have the courage to correct misdirection and point out where mistakes lie. A researcher should have the courage to speak the truth at all times.

The ninth principle is a proper understanding of the text and determining its meaning. Another important aspect of intellectual integrity is a commitment to understanding the text correctly and determining its meaning in a way consistent with scientific principles. The most dangerous thing in the field of knowledge is someone following their own desires and subjective opinions. Understanding this text is very important, especially in the field of social sciences such as politics and history, because if the understanding is not accurate, it can cause conflicts with certain parties.

The tenth principle is to seek specialists. An honest researcher will obtain information from reliable and trustworthy specialists in their field directly from the original sources. In a world inundated with research findings, trust in the results sometimes needs to rely on experts and specialists in that particular field. With the demand for publishing research findings, many results are not trustworthy, hence the need to refer to specialists.

The eleventh principle is unbiased and honest criticism. Honest intellectual criticism is a positive characteristic of a good researcher. This is an intellectual tradition that needs to be continued and maintained. The spirit of criticism and evaluation demands that true researchers practice it on themselves and others.

The first principle, namely etiquette and intention as a researcher, may not be common in contemporary scientific research terminology. However, research’s concepts of ethics, integrity, and responsibility often become fundamental principles emphasized in various disciplines. This principle describes how researchers should maintain a professional, ethical, and responsible attitude in carrying out their research. Although this principle may not explicitly refer to “etiquette and intention” in much research literature, the underlying values ​​remain relevant and important in the practice of scientific research worldwide.

Indonesian society, known for its religiosity, is well-suited to apply the principles of etiquette and good intentions in research. These principles help researchers humble themselves and maintain intellectual integrity, enhancing the quality of their thinking and research outcomes. Muslim scholars in the past have shown that these principles make researchers more focused on achieving results that benefit science, technology, and humanity.

Good manners and intentions are important foundations for other research principles for the Indonesian community. Applying this principle creates a conducive and ethical research environment, which helps researchers achieve better and more beneficial results for the broader community.

Scientific research to seek the truth

The main purpose of scientific research is to search for truth. In this context, ‘truth’ is the attribute of findings or discoveries that demonstrate their consistency with verifiable and widely accepted facts or reality. This principle is the fundamental foundation in every endeavor to discover and explore knowledge. However, if research is conducted based on false data or manipulated results, the information generated will become untrue or not in line with objective reality. This can happen if research principles are not properly followed. Ironically, situations like this can be more dangerous than ignorance and stupidity, as they promote the spread of false or misleading ‘truths’. Here is a poem that reflects on this thought.

In a world filled with light and darkness,
There is knowledge that guides, and there is that which ensnares.
Be careful, my brother, in your bold steps,
Not all that glitters is gold, some cause harm.

False knowledge, oh how misleading it is,
Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, destroying without a trace.
Not just blinding the eyes, but also poisoning the heart,
Making us stray far, in a meaningless labyrinth.

False knowledge, more dangerous than ignorance,
Ignorance can be taught, but false knowledge deceives.
So sweet in writing, but poison in sentiment,
Making us feel wise, yet we are trapped in a prison.

Beware of the allure, full of lies,
Which gives us a sense of trust, but steals the truth.
Seek true knowledge, which will set you free,
For only with truth, can we find real peace.

The philosophy of science on conducting scientific research

To explain the principles of scientific research, the most relevant philosophy of science theory is “Falsificationism” proposed by philosopher Karl Popper. Falsificationism is a methodological approach in scientific research that emphasizes the importance of testing hypotheses or theories by seeking evidence that can refute them. This approach considers that scientific knowledge grows through the process of eliminating incorrect hypotheses and improving existing theories.

Falsificationism describes the principles that should be applied in scientific research, including scientific integrity, commitment to accurate understanding, and unbiased and honest criticism. This approach also acknowledges the importance of preparation, competence, and mastery in the field of research, as well as appreciating the role of specialists in scientific research.

In his works such as “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” and “Conjectures and Refutations,” Karl Popper explains how scientific research should focus on the effort to find evidence that can refute existing theories and that a good theory is one that can be tested and refuted. The principles proposed by Popper support the importance of scientific etiquette, intention, and integrity in research, as well as the need to gather information with awareness, critically analyze material, and be committed to seeking the truth.

In addition, Falsificationism also recognizes the importance of collaboration and communication among researchers and specialists in scientific research, as well as the need to seek benefits from research for humanity. The principles of Falsificationism are in line with the approach to conducting quality and impactful scientific research.

Francis Bacon’s philosophy of science theory can also be linked to this principle of scientific research, as he is considered one of the founders of modern scientific methodology. In his work titled “Novum Organum”, Bacon proposes a different scientific approach from the dominant Aristotelian approach of his time.

Bacon emphasizes the importance of observation and experimentation as the foundation of knowledge and proposes induction as a tool for developing new knowledge. He also highlights the importance of verification and validation in scientific research and expanding the scope of knowledge by avoiding deviation or bias.

The principles explained by Bacon can support an approach that values observation and experimentation, emphasizing induction in developing new knowledge. This is also relevant to verifying and validating scientific research and avoiding data collection and analysis bias.

However, it should be noted that there is a difference between Popper’s Falsificationism approach and Bacon’s. Popper emphasizes the importance of seeking evidence that can refute existing theories, while Bacon emphasizes the importance of testing and verification in developing new knowledge. Nevertheless, both have similarities in prioritizing scientific methods based on observation, experimentation, and verification.

Falsificationism and the Inductive Method are precise scientific philosophy theories to explain how to conduct scientific research, as they emphasize the importance of good scientific research methodology principles, scientific integrity, and commitment to truth while recognizing the role of collaboration, communication and benefits for humanity in scientific research.

The scientific research method can be associated with Karl Popper’s Falsificationism theory and Francis Bacon’s Induction Method in the philosophy of science. Both emphasize the importance of testing hypotheses as well as observation, experimentation, and verification in scientific research.

3 – University ranking

The human need for social status influences various aspects of life, including education and the university system. One example is the phenomenon of universities pursuing higher rankings and status. Highly ranked universities are often deemed more prestigious, making them attractive to students, professors, and donors. This allows them to attract more resources and becomes an advantageous strategy for educational institutions.

However, an excessive focus on rankings and social status can lead to negative impacts, such as sacrificing the quality of education and student learning experiences. Unhealthy competition among universities can result in unfair or unethical policies, such as data manipulation or adversely affecting the well-being of faculty and staff.

It is important for universities to find a balance between pursuing rankings and ensuring the quality of education and the happiness of all academic community members. Education should be an inclusive endeavor focused on intellectual growth and all parties’ well-being, not just status or rankings. Society needs to appreciate universities based on their contributions to knowledge, social progress, and individual well-being, not just on the status or rankings they achieve.

To achieve this balance, universities must uphold ethics in research and publication, avoiding data manipulation and low-quality publications in order to improve rankings. High academic and ethical standards should be the foundation of research and publications. Universities also need to encourage innovation and creativity, providing support for educators and researchers to explore new fields that have not been extensively explored without being confined to current trends.

In addition, universities should create an inclusive and diverse environment, avoiding excessive focus on academic achievement that can hinder diversity and inclusivity. Factors such as cultural and social diversity, life experiences, and non-academic abilities should be considered to influence someone’s academic success positively.

In facing the dilemma of university rankings, higher education institutions must seek a balance between competing on the international stage and maintaining their academic integrity and values. Rankings should be one of the tools for evaluating the quality of universities, not the sole indicator of success.

One way to create a balance between process and outcome is by formulating a more comprehensive and fair evaluation system, which takes into account various important aspects of education and research, including the quality of the process and the impact of the results. Additionally, an enlightening education should be integrated with character development and ethical values so that college graduates can excel academically and possess high integrity and social concern.

By maintaining a balance between process and outcome and pursuing rankings in an ethical and inclusive manner, universities will be better able to create a quality educational and research environment. This will enable them to fulfill educational goals that enlighten and empower society and make a more meaningful contribution to the advancement of knowledge and individual well-being.

Both the process and the outcomes in education and research produced by universities have important and interconnected roles. Therefore, universities must strive to balance these two aspects while ensuring that ethical values and integrity remain their top priorities in carrying out their educational and research missions.

Avoid manipulative shortcuts

Avoiding shortcuts in improving rankings through number manipulation is very important. The numbers that reflect university rankings often do not reflect the reality on the ground. This phenomenon is also evident in scientific publications, where number manipulation is done to increase citations. Some “strange” strategies used to achieve these numbers often violate academic ethics, such as citation cartels carried out by some journals and the practice of mutual citation.

Currently, a view depicts how certain parts of the higher education world have been influenced by those who manipulate information for their own benefit. This situation requires us to reflect and seek the true purpose of research and education to avoid getting trapped in meaningless number games. The main focus should not be solely on achieving high rankings based on superficial achievements!

Working with soul

A view suggests that some individuals and higher education institutions prioritize achievement and rankings over the process itself, including university rankings. Although competition and personal or institutional achievements are indeed important and can drive innovation and growth, being too focused on the end result can cause us to forget the value of the work itself.

On the other hand, there is an opinion that many innovators and important award winners in the world tend to have a more process-oriented approach. They may not be too focused on achievements or rankings but more on pursuing meaningful work and contributing to global progress.

However, the reasons why a group of people seems to be more successful in creating innovations or achieving awards may be more complex and not solely related to their work methods. Factors such as access to quality education, adequate funding, and freedom of thought and expression may also play an important role.

Therefore, perhaps we must find a balance between achievement and process, results and journey. Each individual and group has their own strengths and weaknesses, and learning from one another can be important in creating a more innovative and fulfilling work environment.

Higher education is just

Our constitution, UUD 1945, in Article 31 Clause 1, states, “Every citizen has the right to education.” This fundamental principle should be the foundation of education management in Indonesia. Justice in education, in the sense that every Indonesian citizen has an equal right to receive a decent education, is in line with the constitution’s mandate. Furthermore, Article 31 Clause 5 of UUD 1945 affirms that “The government promotes science and technology while upholding the values of religion and national unity for the progress of civilization and the welfare of humanity.” Thus, the role of the government is crucial in ensuring that the principle of justice in education is upheld.

University rankings often serve as a benchmark for determining the “quality” of an educational institution. Although in theory, this can be a useful reference, in practice, universities often become too focused on improving their rankings and forget their main mission. As a result, resources and opportunities are often allocated only to a small group of individuals who are considered capable of “raising” the university’s ranking, while others are neglected. This is an example of how the paradox of justice can occur in higher education.

If higher education only focuses on rankings and neglects its mission of education for the broader community, it will be difficult for us to achieve a just and equitable society. On the contrary, if universities and higher education institutions return to their main mission – which is to educate and provide equal opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background – we will see a significant improvement in social justice and education.

Justice in higher education means that everyone has equal access to education, equal opportunities to learn and develop, and equal treatment regardless of their background or abilities. Therefore, higher education and universities should focus more on evenly distributing resources and opportunities rather than just focusing on chasing rankings. In this context, justice is about ensuring that every individual gets what they need to achieve their fullest potential, not just providing what is deemed “good” by a small influential group of individuals.

Philosophy of science about the ranking of universities

A typical dilemma strikes the academic world, where there is a noticeable imbalance between idealism and reality in achieving accomplishments and maintaining high rankings. Some thoughts and theories in the philosophy of science provide alternative perspectives that can serve as guidance in navigating such issues.

Karl Popper, the renowned philosopher of science, is known for his view on falsification — a method used to test the validity of scientific theories. According to Popper, upholding scientific integrity and pursuing truth is crucial rather than solely chasing rankings. In the academic context, Popper’s message can be interpreted as the urgency to not lose sight of the fundamental values of knowledge for the sake of recognition and status.

John Dewey, a famous philosopher and educator from America, supported the progressive education approach. This approach emphasizes the importance of experience and exploration in the learning process. Dewey emphasizes the importance of educational quality and creating an environment that supports innovation and intellectual growth rather than solely pursuing rankings. This encourages the belief that universities should prioritize the development of student’s abilities and knowledge over rankings that may restrict creativity and innovation.

In his “rational bureaucracy” concept, German sociologist and economist Max Weber explains how highly structured organizations focused on rules and procedures can hinder innovation and creativity. Although Weber does not explicitly discuss higher education, his concept can help explain how universities that are overly obsessed with rankings often sacrifice individual needs and innovation within the education system.

The thoughts of these philosophers help to alleviate the dilemma between idealism and reality in the world of universities and emphasize the importance of maintaining the quality of education and scientific integrity and creating an environment that supports innovation and intellectual growth. Despite the reality that universities are currently facing significant challenges, we must strive to achieve an ideal situation where education and research become the top priority, not just rankings.

Karl Popper is known for his theory of falsification. John Dewey promoted progressive education that emphasizes experience as an integral part of the learning process. Meanwhile, Max Weber created the concept of “rational bureaucracy” to explain how structured and rule-focused organizations can hinder innovation and creativity.

4 – Complexity of research governance

As we enter an era of increasingly complex information and technology, understanding the world around us becomes a challenge that is not easy. There are ways to explore this complex world more effectively and systematically. This is very important, especially for universities that now need to focus on research in addition to education and community service.

First and foremost, we can begin by exploring science. We can gather information from various sources and critically analyze the existing data. However, do not forget to consider different perspectives in order to avoid being trapped in a narrow point of view.

To truly understand the complex world, we must also constantly be open to new knowledge and develop critical and logical thinking abilities. We must have an inclusive mindset and be open to diverse possibilities.

In Indonesia, unraveling complex research governance requires a systemic and multidisciplinary approach. Several strategies can be implemented, such as enhancing coordination and collaboration among research stakeholders, improving transparency and accountability in research management, and fostering innovation and development of new technologies through the establishment of adequate research infrastructure and facilities.

In addition, it is also important to enhance the quality and quantity of researchers through education, training, and career development. Increasing public participation in the research process is also a key factor, including in formulating research priorities and utilizing research findings.

Building a strong research culture can begin by raising awareness of the importance of research for development and progress in science, technology, and society. Education and training provided to researchers should include teaching about the significance of ethics and integrity in research and emphasizing innovation and new discoveries.

Collaboration between disciplines should also be encouraged in a strong research culture. This collaboration will allow researchers to leverage diverse expertise and produce richer and more impactful research. Furthermore, researchers should be incentivized and supported to share their knowledge, data, and findings with their colleagues within and outside their institutions.

Effective communication in research culture includes the ability to convey research findings to diverse audiences, including those without a scientific background. Researchers should be trained to present their research findings clearly and concisely so that the general public can understand and appreciate the information.

Ethics and integrity in research are important components of a strong research culture. Researchers must always uphold ethical principles in conducting their research, including in data collection, analysis, and publication of research findings. Integrity in research will help ensure that the knowledge generated is trustworthy and valued by society.

Certainly, all of these strategies require strong synergy and collaboration from all research stakeholders. However, with time and long-term commitment, the implementation of these strategies will yield optimal results and help us better understand the complex world.

By building a strong research culture, alongside good research governance, we will be better equipped to face the challenges of an increasingly complex era of information and technology. All elements within the research ecosystem will support each other, creating an environment conducive to discovery and innovation and enabling us to better understand the world around us in a more systematic way.

The combination of good research governance and a strong research culture will be a solid foundation for developing great and innovative research. With close cooperation between stakeholders and a long-term commitment to improving research quality, we will be able to face the challenges of the complex information and technology era and understand the world around us better and more systematically.

A bad system will defeat a good person

The phrase “a bad system will defeat a good person” underscores the importance of a good and fair system, especially in the context of good research governance in universities. The academic world heavily relies on the quality of research governance, where a bad or unfair system can hinder research progress, impede collaboration, and damage the university’s reputation.

For example, in a poor system, the allocation of research funds and access to laboratory facilities may be uneven or opaque, promotion processes may be unfair, or the environment may not support collaboration among researchers. In situations like these, highly skilled and dedicated researchers may not be able to achieve the success they desire due to factors beyond their control.

Several steps need to be taken to address this issue in the context of research governance at universities. First, the university must build and implement a transparent and fair system for the allocation of research funds and laboratory management so that all researchers have an equal opportunity to obtain financial support and access to laboratory facilities. Second, the university needs to develop a fair and objective promotion process based on academic achievements, research contributions, and teaching rather than personal connections or politics.

Furthermore, creating an environment that supports collaboration among researchers is crucial, both within and across disciplines, so that innovative ideas can flourish and thrive. This includes providing adequate education and training to enhance the quality and capabilities of researchers and assisting them in understanding how the research governance system in universities works and the best ways to operate within it.

Scientific integrity and research governance

Individuals with strong scientific integrity will naturally conduct research in a proper and ethical manner. Scientific integrity is the foundation for all research activities, encompassing values such as honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity.

An integrity researcher does not require complex rules or regulations to guide their research, as they inherently understand the importance of research ethics. Conversely, a less integrity researcher may seek loopholes in the system and find more sophisticated ways to deceive existing rules and regulations.

Take the example of research reporting systems; there is always a chance to break the rules. The question that arises here is, what is more important: building a strong research system first or fostering scientific integrity and research ethics?

As taught by Prophet Muhammad about the importance of building morals first: “I was sent to perfect noble character.” This is in line with the concept of phronesis introduced by Aristotle, which is the ability to make good moral or ethical decisions that are highly relevant in the context of research.

In addition, it is important to understand that building scientific integrity, research ethics, and researcher attitudes are more important than the system of research governance. No matter how advanced it may be, a research governance system will only function as well as the integrity and ethics that underlie its research. Therefore, the first step in building good research governance is to establish scientific integrity and strong research ethics in every researcher. Then, a research governance system built on this foundation will be more capable of producing quality and integrity research.

Challenges in the research and innovation ecosystem

Various challenges faced by research and innovation institutions, including the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) recently, reflect common issues in the research and innovation ecosystem. Leadership transitions are often seen as the main solution, but it should be emphasized that establishing the right research ecosystem is far more important than simply changing the head of the institution.

The bureaucratization of knowledge has become one of the main challenges that need to be overcome. Researchers must be able to allocate their energy and resources fully to research, not to administrative and bureaucratic matters. In this regard, reforms that reduce bureaucratic burdens and prioritize the substance of research are greatly needed.

Lack of funding and recognition are also serious challenges. Researchers need sufficient financial support and recognition for their contributions. More decentralized funding, which allows each research center to manage its own funds, could be an effective solution.

Furthermore, the concept that research institutions should have autonomy and independence is crucial. This will enable researchers to conduct their studies without unnecessary external pressures and promote innovation.

Finally, the pressure to produce research output in the form of international journal publications needs to be reassessed. Researchers should be free to explore various forms of research output, including products or solutions that can benefit society. Systematic changes in the research and innovation ecosystem are crucial steps in supporting quality and impactful research.

The philosophy of science regarding the governance of complex research

The appropriate philosophical approach to the governance of complex research is systems philosophy and complex thinking. This approach emphasizes the importance of viewing the world as an interconnected and complex system and evaluating problems from various perspectives. Some philosophers associated with this approach include Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Herbert A. Simon, and Ilya Prigogine.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy is an Austrian biologist widely known as the father of General System Theory. Born in 1901, Bertalanffy conducted various revolutionary research throughout his life, surpassing the limits of traditional scientific disciplines to develop a more holistic understanding of the world. General System Theory, first proposed in the 1930s, is a unique and innovative conception that attempts to capture reality from a systematic and organized perspective, emphasizing that entities or phenomena in this world must be understood as part of a larger system.

The General Systems Theory developed by Bertalanffy is a theoretical framework used to understand systems at various scales, ranging from biological systems like cells and organisms to social and economic systems. According to Bertalanffy’s perspective, a system is an entity composed of interacting parts, and the behavior of the system cannot be predicted solely by understanding these parts in isolation. Instead, understanding a system as a whole requires analyzing the interactions and relationships among its parts. This was a revolutionary idea in its time and has significantly influenced various fields, including biology, psychology, management, and organizational studies. With the General Systems Theory, Bertalanffy deepens our understanding of complexity and interconnectedness in the real world.

Herbert A. Simon was an American political scientist and economist famous for his concept of bounded rationality and his research on problem-solving in organizational contexts and decision-making. Born in 1916, Simon received the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1978 for his contributions to the theory of decision-making in economic organizations. Simon argued that humans, in making decisions, are constrained by the information they possess, their cognitive resources, and the time available to them, a concept known as “bounded rationality”. Instead, individuals and organizations often seek solutions that are ‘good enough’ or ‘adequate’ rather than optimal solutions, an approach he referred to as “satisficing”.

Simon’s concept of rationality and problem-solving boundaries is relevant in addressing the paradox between policy and field reality. In this context, policy-makers and stakeholders must acknowledge their own limitations in understanding and knowledge of complex and often uncertain situations. They must navigate this complexity with adequate and rational approaches to achieve “good enough” solutions acceptable to various stakeholders. Simon also emphasizes the importance of systematic policy evaluation and the involvement of various stakeholders in the policy-making and implementation processes. Therefore, understanding and applying Simon’s concept in this context can help reduce the mismatch between policy and field reality and improve effectiveness and efficiency in decision-making and problem-solving.

Ilya Prigogine, a Belgian physicist and chemist who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977, is widely known for his contributions to understanding dissipative structures and chaos theory. Through his work, Prigogine demonstrated that in systems far from equilibrium, new complex structures and patterns can emerge as a result of dissipative processes. This was a major breakthrough in understanding complex and unstable physical and chemical systems. In this context, ‘dissipative structure’ refers to a structure that can form and persist in a system far from equilibrium, where energy or matter flows through the system and is transformed into another form.

Prigogine’s approach is highly relevant in discussing strategies to address various paradoxes in research and innovation. In the world of research and innovation, we often face complex and unstable situations, similar to the systems far from equilibrium studied by Prigogine. To deal with these situations, researchers and innovators can borrow Prigogine’s approach by accepting and harnessing chaos and uncertainty as integral parts of the discovery and innovation process. Furthermore, Prigogine’s concept also strengthens the argument for adopting an integrated approach between fundamental research and applied research. Just as in systems far from equilibrium, change and innovation often arise from complex interactions between various elements and processes. Therefore, understanding and harnessing these interactions require an integrated research approach that involves both fundamental and applied research.

So, the systems approach and complex thinking, associated with philosophers like Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Herbert A. Simon, and Ilya Prigogine, are the most suitable philosophy of science theories to explain the complexity of research governance. This approach acknowledges the importance of viewing the world as interconnected and complex systems and evaluating problems from different perspectives to achieve better understanding and more effective solutions.

The philosophy of systems and complex thinking is a suitable philosophical approach for the management of complex research. Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed the General Systems Theory, Herbert A. Simon developed the concept of bounded rationality, and Ilya Prigogine is known for the concept of dissipative structures and chaos theory.

5 – Paradox of stupidity

The paradox of stupidity, also known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, describes a situation in which someone is not fully aware of their own knowledge limitations. As a result, they feel smarter or more knowledgeable than they actually are. This paradox is named after two psychologists, Dunning and Kruger, who first identified and studied this phenomenon. In the context of scientific publications, this paradox is often associated with the bibliometric paradox, which reflects the gap between perceived intelligence and actual knowledge. This phenomenon is also related to cognitive bias, our tendency to make incorrect judgments based on existing assumptions and perceptions.

There are scientists or researchers who are trapped in the paradox of ignorance. They feel more competent and knowledgeable than they actually are, unaware of their own limitations of knowledge. As a result, they may disregard the opinions of others and believe that their approach or thinking is the best.

Some characteristics of scientists or researchers trapped in the paradox of ignorance include arrogance, a worldview composed only of black and white, speaking loudly but not being regarded, measuring intelligence based on the number of publications or awards, rushing to conclusions, being overly confident, easily disappointed, thinking linearly, considering mistakes or anomalies as “errors,” and thinking convergently. Knowing these characteristics can help us be more cautious and not fall into the same mindset, as well as help us collaborate with scientists and researchers who are more open and accepting of their knowledge limitations.

Bibliometrics paradox

The bibliometric paradox is a phenomenon in bibliometric analysis, which is the study of the quantity and quality of scientific publications, where researchers who have achieved excellence in their careers tend to be more productive in terms of publication compared to other researchers who are not as excellent as them. This phenomenon contradicts the common assumption that more productive researchers have higher research quality.

This paradoxical phenomenon also occurs where highly renowned or widely cited research is considered to be highly important, but in reality, the research may not be truly relevant or even accurate. This is related to limitations in the use of quantitative indicators, such as citation counts, to assess research quality, which can lead to incorrect conclusions. This paradox also includes the possibility that research considered to be classic or highly influential may become more difficult for other researchers to access, thus contributing less to scientific progress. The bibliometric paradox indicates that bibliometric measurements need to be done carefully and take into account the circumstances, and should not be the sole way to evaluate research.

Paradox of wisdom

If we refer to another paradox, the more knowledge and wisdom a person has, the more aware they are of how little they actually know. In other words, the wiser someone is, the more they realize how much they still don’t know. This can make someone feel not too clever even though they are actually very smart. This paradox occurs because the wiser someone is, the more they become aware of the limitations in understanding the world and the complexity of life.

Forgetting the bigger truth

Busyness in dealing with trivial matters and chasing non-essential things often makes us forget the bigger essence. Understanding the essence or essence of a problem or concept is the key to better and deeper understanding. Forgetting the bigger essence can lead to shallow and incomplete understanding and can lead to mistakes in making decisions or taking appropriate actions. Therefore, it is very important to understand the bigger essence of a concept or problem. Often, we promote ignorance because we forget to understand the bigger essence.

In Arabic, there is a phrase “Wallahu a’lam bisawab” which means “And Allah knows best”. This phrase is often used as an expression of the awareness that only Allah truly knows the truth about something, and humans have limitations in understanding the true reality. This expression is also often used to show humility and acknowledgment of human understanding of limitations. In relation to religion and ethics, this expression is often used to express humility and obedience to the will of Allah.

Philosophy of science regarding the paradox of ignorance

The theory of scientific philosophy of “Falsifiability” by Karl Popper and “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn are two theories most relevant in explaining the paradox of ignorance.

Karl Popper introduced the concept of falsifiability as a criterion for distinguishing between science and non-science. According to Popper, scientific theories must be testable and capable of being proven wrong. In the paradox of ignorance and the bibliometric paradox, the concept of falsifiability teaches us to be cautious in accepting scientific claims and to always search for evidence that can prove those claims wrong. This concept also reminds us to be aware of the limitations of our knowledge and to be skeptical of claims that appear too confident or irrefutable.

In his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Thomas Kuhn discusses how science changes and evolves over time through paradigm shifts. Scientists work within a generally accepted paradigm, but when new evidence emerges that is inconsistent with that paradigm, scientists begin to seek alternatives and ultimately adopt a new paradigm that better explains the observed phenomena. Kuhn’s thinking reminds us that scientific knowledge is tentative and can always be changed or updated.

In terms of the paradox of wisdom and forgetting the bigger truth, the Greek philosopher Socrates also provided a relevant concept: “I know that I know nothing.” True wisdom lies in the awareness of the limitations of our knowledge and the humility to acknowledge it. Socrates emphasizes the importance of reflecting on fundamental questions and striving to understand the essence of a concept or problem.

The thoughts of Popper, Kuhn, and Socrates can help explain the phenomena of the paradox of ignorance, the paradox of bibliometrics, the paradox of wisdom, and forgetting the greater reality. The concept of falsifiability teaches us to be skeptical of unchallengeable scientific claims, while Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts reminds us that scientific knowledge is always evolving and tentative. Socrates’ thoughts remind us to contemplate fundamental questions and acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge as an important step toward true wisdom.

Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn’s philosophical theories are relevant to the ignorance paradox. Falsifiability distinguishes between science and non-science, while paradigm shifts remind us of the provisional nature of knowledge. Socrates emphasized awareness of the limitations of knowledge and pondered fundamental questions to attain true wisdom.

6 – Pseudo achievement

Pseudo achievements are a phenomenon where the accomplishments displayed by an individual or an institution do not align with the actual reality. Pseudo achievements can be the result of intentional or unintentional deception, as well as situations where the information provided is not entirely accurate but unintentional. However, behind these pseudo achievements, there is still great hope for truth and honesty in academic accomplishments.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for universities in developing countries to often rely on superficial achievements measured by bibliometrics and citations, even though these are often irrelevant to academic excellence. There are several reasons why this happens. First, the evaluation systems in developing countries are often not good enough to comprehensively evaluate the quality of research and education. Bibliometrics and citations are easy to measure and can be used as substitutes to evaluate research quality. Second, resource constraints make it difficult for universities in developing countries to collect the necessary data to evaluate the quality of research and education comprehensively. Third, there is pressure to improve university rankings globally, which can lead to a focus on superficial achievements measured by bibliometrics and citations. Fourth, colleges in developing countries often do not have adequate systems to evaluate the performance of faculty and students, so they rely on bibliometrics and citations as indicators of academic performance.

In achieving prestigious rankings and reputations, many universities are now trapped in the pursuit of numerical indicators such as the number of publications and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The excessive focus on these numbers often obscures the main goals of universities, which are to create an effective learning environment and conduct impactful research. As a result, the quality of education and research can be overlooked.

To address this, universities must refocus on their main goal, which is to create a beneficial environment for learning and quality research for all parties involved rather than just chasing numbers. In this context, universities in developing countries need to prioritize the development of knowledge that aligns with the nation’s development needs.

This can be achieved by designing a curriculum relevant to national and local needs and fostering close collaboration between industry and academia. At the same time, it is important to emphasize fundamental science. Although the results may not be immediately visible, fundamental science provides a deep understanding of basic principles that can serve as a foundation for innovation and technological development.

In addition, applied research that solves real problems in society is also important, but it should not overlook basic research that may not directly yield practical results but is crucial for long-term development.

Investment in the development of human resources is also very crucial. Through the improvement of teacher education quality, professional training, and scholarship grants, we can prepare a new generation of scientists and researchers who are capable of addressing current challenges and have the ability to anticipate and respond to future challenges.

The government must implement inclusive education policies to ensure equal access for all individuals, regardless of their economic or social background. By incorporating this strategy, the country can create an effective and efficient education system that is not only focused on chasing pseudo achievements but also committed to developing knowledge suitable for national development.

Principles of appropriateness and scientific integrity

Maintaining propriety and balance is of utmost importance in the world of research and scientific publishing. Research findings should accurately represent sincere efforts, knowledge, and skills. Nonetheless, there are instances when the urge to publish numerous research results rapidly fosters excessive conduct and disregards these crucial principles.

The principle of propriety aims to ensure that research is conducted with integrity and its results are published honestly and transparently. Researchers should not seek shortcuts or use unethical methods to boost their publications. Instead, they should prioritize the quality of their research and ensure that the results they publish genuinely represent the effort and knowledge they have put in.

When a researcher publishes a large number of papers in a short period of time, it can raise questions. The number of publications may exceed what seems possible or reasonable for an individual, which can raise doubts about the research quality and the author’s integrity. Excessive publications may overlook details and caution in the research process, which in turn can result in a decline in quality and the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information.

Other excessive practices can include data manipulation, splitting research findings into multiple publications, or adding the names of authors who did not actually contribute to the study. All of these actions harm the author’s reputation and the integrity of scientific literature and violate principles of propriety.

To maintain integrity and propriety in research and scholarly publication, researchers must strike a balance between productivity and scientific integrity. They should strive to publish as much as possible while also ensuring that each publication meets the highest quality standards and accurately reflects their contributions to scientific knowledge. In doing so, they can avoid excessive behavior and ensure that their research and publications always adhere to principles of propriety.

Although integrity and ethics are core values in research and publication, several challenges in their implementation in the scientific world require further consideration. Firstly, defining and limiting ‘ethics’ in this context can be challenging, as there may be differences of opinion based on discipline or culture. Secondly, when evaluating researchers’ performance, there is professional and institutional pressure to publish significant work while ensuring that research quality is not compromised. Lastly, upholding principles of ethics and integrity requires an active role from institutions such as universities, journals, and ethics oversight bodies.

This discussion is very important to understand how principles of propriety and integrity can be applied and maintained in research and publication practices. By considering these challenges, we can seek the best ways to uphold propriety and integrity in the world of research and scientific publication, ensuring that published knowledge comes from genuine and ethical efforts and knowledge.

Numbers, statistics, and pseudo achievements

In a world filled with numbers and statistics, we often find ourselves trapped in various interpretations, depending on the context and our perspective on those numbers. Numbers have two opposing sides. On one side, numbers can be symbols of wisdom and profound meaning. On the other side, numbers can be used as instruments for shallow purposes, such as pursuing prestige.

Take the example of scientific research on climate change. The numbers in this context are not just mere statistics. They are symbols of an important message about how important it is for us to protect the environment for a better future. These numbers help us understand the impact we have on the world and provide insight into how we can make positive changes. They carry wisdom and profound meaning.

However, numbers can also be a shallow tool. Numbers can be used to chase prestige, such as achieving certain records or pursuing targets of publications and intellectual property rights. In this context, numbers become the main goal without considering the actual quality or impact. This is an example of what is called “illusory achievement,” where the pursuit of numbers becomes the primary goal without considering broader values or impacts. In the battle between quantity and quality, illusory achievements tend to be more oriented towards quantity without considering broader values or impacts.

So, numbers can be a powerful tool, but how we understand and use numbers is crucial. Numbers that bring wisdom and deep meaning can help us make positive changes. Meanwhile, chasing numbers for shallow purposes or pseudo achievements can lead to unbeneficial and even harmful outcomes. Therefore, we need to understand and consider that pseudo-achievements only provide temporary satisfaction and do not have long-term positive impacts.

Useful knowledge

As a Muslim, I refer to the hadith that states, “When a person dies, all of their deeds are cut off except for three things: continuous charity, beneficial knowledge, and righteous prayers from their children.” This is important in discussing the phenomenon of ‘pseudo achievements’ in academic paper writing.

“Pseudo achievements” happen when individuals or a group of people gain recognition or prestige by means that do not significantly contribute to their field of expertise. In the realm of academic paper writing, this can occur when a paper is created primarily to enhance reputation or meet publication goals rather than to advance understanding or knowledge.

This contradicts the values emphasized in the hadith, highlighting the importance of ‘beneficial knowledge’. An academic paper should positively contribute to its field and help others in their knowledge or understanding.

To prevent ‘pseudo achievements’, researchers and academics should always ask themselves before writing a paper: “Will this provide benefits to others? Will this help enrich knowledge or understanding?” If the answer is “yes”, then they are contributing to ‘useful science’. If the answer is “no”, a reevaluation of their goals and priorities may be necessary.

In this way, academic ethics and important values emphasized in the hadith can be preserved, ensuring that research and writing will continue to provide real benefits, not just superficial achievements, even after the author is no longer present.

The illusionary achievement in the field of scientific philosophy

Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, two influential philosophers, introduced the theory of social constructivism, which has important relevance in evaluating the phenomenon of fake achievement, especially in the academic sphere. This theory is rooted in the understanding that knowledge and scientific practice are inseparable from the influence of society and the social environment in which they emerge and develop.

Social constructivism explains that social and scientific realities—including academic achievements—are created through social interactions between individuals and their communities. These individuals and groups shape and redefine social constructs through conversations and negotiations based on their experiences and understanding.

In this context, language and communication become key tools in the process of shaping social constructs. These constructs are dynamic and can change over time, indicating that social and scientific realities are not fixed and universal but are influenced by social processes and interactions.

The concept of pseudo-achievement in the academic sphere can be understood through the lens of social constructivism. Social and institutional pressures often produce this pseudo-achievement, such as evaluation systems based on citations or bibliometrics, the desire to improve university rankings and resource constraints. Although these indicators are often seen as measures of achievement, they frequently do not accurately reflect the quality of research and education.

For example, universities in developing countries may be forced to comply with evaluation standards set by international institutions, which often do not align with the local context and available resources. This can create a situation where universities strive to improve their rankings through strategies showcasing pseudo achievements, such as excessive publications or citation manipulation.

Social constructivism helps us understand that knowledge and academic achievement are not solely the result of pure objectivity but are also influenced by social and cultural factors. Considering this view, we must be more critical of the existing evaluation system and seek alternative ways to measure academic achievement that are more accurate and relevant to the local and global context.

Social constructivism by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann explains how society shapes and influences knowledge and scientific practices. Social factors and existing policies influence academic achievements and values.

7 – Politicians and science

I teach research methodology to master’s and doctoral students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Universitas Negeri Malang (UM). I use the book “Thinking, fast and slow” written by Daniel Kahneman to explain how to conduct research effectively. This book discusses decision-making, which is highly relevant to scientific research. This topic is also important as a foundation for understanding the decisions made by leaders, especially politicians. We all know that politics is related to power, and wrong decisions can harm society.

For example, I read news about a local leader who made a decision that greatly harmed the community. If a civil engineer makes a mistake in decision-making, perhaps only a bridge collapses. But if a leader makes the wrong decision, the impact can be significant and detrimental to society. That is why, as a leader, making decisions based on common sense and science is crucial.

In the book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” Kahneman discusses two systems of human thinking. System 1 is fast and intuitive, while System 2 is slow and rational. Kahneman states that System 1 often takes over the decision-making process and can result in thinking errors. Therefore, it is important for us to activate System 2 when making important decisions, especially for leaders.

From a political perspective, decisions made by leaders can have an impact on many individuals and even the entire country. Therefore, leaders must pay attention to science and facts in making decisions and not just rely on intuition and personal experience. Mistakes in decision-making can have very negative consequences for society, and as an academic and educator, my task is to help students understand the importance of research methodology and evidence-based decision-making.

In order to create good decisions based on science, leaders must avoid excessive ambition and consider the interests of the community. If a leader only focuses on their own ambition, the decisions made will not be accurate and will have a negative impact on society. Therefore, it is important for us to choose leaders who have integrity and are capable of making decisions based on science.

Philosophy of science regarding the relationship between politics and science

The most relevant philosophy of science theory for explaining the relationship between politics and science is the theory of “Falsificationism” put forward by philosopher Karl Popper. Falsificationism is a theory in the philosophy of science that states that a scientific statement or hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be considered valid science. This theory emphasizes the importance of testing and criticism in the scientific process and seeks to avoid dogmatism and beliefs that are not based on empirical evidence.

In the relationship between politics and science framework, falsificationism is relevant because it highlights the importance of decision-making based on logic, empirical evidence, and scientific research. For example, when politicians make decisions, they must consider the available data and facts to avoid mistakes that can cause harm to society.

The philosophical view of Karl Popper emphasizes the importance of criticism and openness to correction in thinking and decision-making. Popper believes that it is impossible to ascertain the absolute truth of an idea or theory, but we can test these ideas or theories by offering criticism and seeking evidence that contradicts them.

In terms of decision-making, Popper teaches that mistakes are part of the learning and renewal process. A politician or leader must be open to corrections and able to accept criticism, as well as be able to reevaluate decisions that have been made. In this regard, mistakes made by a politician can have a greater impact than mistakes made by a civil engineer because political decisions affect many people and have larger long-term consequences.

Thus, Popper’s approach, which emphasizes criticism and openness to correction, is highly relevant in addressing errors in decision-making, especially in the political realm. From a broader perspective, this also highlights the importance of always asking questions and seeking evidence that supports or opposes an idea or decision before taking actions that can affect many people.

In this case, teaching students about “Thinking, fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman is also relevant because this book discusses the two thinking systems that exist in humans – system 1 which is fast, intuitive, and emotional, and system 2 which is slow, analytical, and logical. From a political perspective, leaders and politicians should rely more on the logical and analytical thinking system (system 2) when making decisions that affect society.

Philosopher Karl Popper proposed the theory of falsificationism in the philosophy of science, which is relevant in the context of politics and science, emphasizing criticism and openness to correction in decision-making.

8 – Gatherer, thinker, tinkerer and manager

In several lectures I have delivered on research, I am convinced that presenting a perspective on who scientists really are is very important. There is a misconception that publications reflected in bibliometric numbers can influence how we evaluate and recognize achievements in various fields. Therefore, I would like to share my views on the classification of scientists, which is crucial to understand.

There are three types of scientists: gatherers, thinkers, and tinkerers. A good scientist ideally possesses all three characteristics. For example, there are data-gatherer scientists who have thousands of manuscripts, and their main task is to analyze crystals made by others using a single-crystal X-ray spectrometer. On the other hand, there are scientists who have limited publications but are thinkers with major contributions to theory. Lastly, there are scientists who focus on experiments.

However, there is another classification of scientists that needs to be taken into account, namely managers. Scientists in this category often have a large number of publications because they lead teams that work for them. They manage research and may not always directly contribute to the research and writing. They may only provide big ideas. In fact, sometimes they may not even be aware that their name is included in the published manuscript!

From the examples given, it can be seen that each field has different publication opportunities, depending on the topic and nature of the field. Therefore, it is important not only to measure achievements based on the number of publications or h-index but also to look at the quality of research and the contributions of scientists in their respective fields. We should appreciate all types of scientists and acknowledge their contributions to research progress. In this way, we can give proper recognition and avoid awards that are not in line with actual achievements (pseudo achievements).

Therefore, the evaluation of scientists should go beyond publication metrics and encompass a deeper understanding of their role in research and their contributions to the respective field. Doing so can create a fairer and more comprehensive recognition system, ultimately driving more effective collaboration, innovation, and scientific progress. Additionally, it will encourage scientists to continually develop their abilities in various aspects of research, thereby maximizing their potential to make significant contributions to knowledge and the advancement of humanity.

To achieve this, institutions and academic communities need to make a collective effort to develop more holistic assessment methods that reflect the various contributions made by scientists. An inclusive approach will create a more conducive environment for scientific growth and encourage scientists to go beyond the boundaries of their disciplines in finding solutions to the global challenges we face.

By understanding and appreciating the roles of each scientist in research, we will be able to allocate resources more effectively, appreciate actual achievements, and ensure that every individual feels valued and supported in developing their career. This will help create a more collaborative culture where scientists can work together better and share their knowledge and experiences to achieve greater progress.

Furthermore, efforts to develop fair and inclusive assessment methods will also benefit future generations of scientists. By observing positive examples of equal and fair recognition, they will be more motivated to engage in research and pursue careers in the field of science. This will ultimately help ensure the sustainability and growth of knowledge in the future.

It is important for us to look beyond publication metrics when assessing the achievements of scientists and appreciating their diverse contributions. By adopting a more inclusive and holistic approach to evaluating and recognizing scientific achievements, we will be able to create an environment that is more conducive to the growth and advancement of knowledge and ensure that every scientist feels valued and supported in reaching their true potential.

Philosophy of science regarding the classification of scientists

Philosophers like Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour have presented a philosophical theory of science known as the “Sociology of Scientific Knowledge”. This theory is highly relevant in the process of classifying scientists. By emphasizing that science is a social activity involving individuals with various roles and characteristics, this theory provides insight that the evolution of knowledge is influenced not only by logical and methodological factors but also by social, political, and economic dynamics.

“Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” is relevant because it depicts various roles and characteristics possessed by scientists, such as data collectors, thinkers, craftsmen, and managers. This theory explains that every individual with these roles has a different contribution to the advancement of science and has different publication opportunities.

In his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, philosophers like Thomas Kuhn explain that science evolves through periods of the scientific revolution that involve paradigm shifts. In this process, the roles and contributions of various types of scientists are crucial. For example, data collectors help gather the information and data needed to understand phenomena, thinkers develop new theories and concepts, and craftsmen create new technologies and tools to conduct experiments.

Meanwhile, Bruno Latour, in works like “Science in Action”, emphasizes the importance of actor networks in the process of scientific research. Latour describes how scientists, institutions, technologies, and research objects interact in forming and legitimizing scientific knowledge. The manager’s role as an individual who coordinates research and leads scientific teams becomes crucial in understanding scientific research’s social and organizational dynamics.

Therefore, “Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” is a philosophy of science theory that is suitable for explaining the classification of scientists because it emphasizes the importance of various roles and characteristics of individuals in the process of scientific research and recognizes that scientific progress is the result of interaction between various factors, including social, political, and economic factors.

Philosophers Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour introduced the “Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” emphasizing science as a social activity. Kuhn outlines scientific revolutions and the roles of various scientists, while Latour highlights actor networks in scientific research. This theory recognizes the importance of social, political, and economic factors in the advancement of knowledge.

9 – Quality of thinking

Every day, I immerse myself in a vibrant and dynamic world, interacting with people from diverse backgrounds. On campus, meaningful and substantial conversations take place between me and the students, as well as among fellow professors. I strive with the students to elevate their thinking and cultivate good character.

The following illustration depicts how the quality of our thinking is influenced by the interaction between supra-consciousness and the subconscious, including intuition, spiritual power, past experiences, and habits. The supra-consciousness inspires our awareness, while the subconscious provides projections to consciousness and thoughts. Inspiration is a process that stimulates creativity and innovation. A conducive and supportive environment is necessary to create a favorable mental atmosphere.

However, inspiration and projection will not function optimally if our minds and hearts are disturbed, which is known as the inhibitory mechanism. Mental disturbances and physical health are factors that can cause these obstacles.

In this modern era, there is a tendency to overlook the spiritual strength in nurturing and enhancing a person’s quality of thinking. The main focus is often on formal education and intellectual development, while spiritual strength is given less attention. However, the balance between intellectual and spiritual aspects is crucial in achieving optimal quality of thinking.

One way to integrate spiritual strength and intellectual intelligence is by cultivating good habits and staying away from bad habits. Good habits such as meditation, prayer, or contemplation can help us understand moral and ethical values and develop intuition and inner wisdom.

The best education is one that can combine the sharpening of logical reasoning abilities with the strengthening of spiritual power. This can be found in Gerd Gigerenzer’s book, “The Intelligence of the Unconscious,” where he states that “intuition is the highest form of intelligence” or can be translated as “intuition is the highest form of intelligence.” Therefore, exploring the potential of intuition and inner wisdom as part of our self-development process is important.

In order to create a balance between intellectual and spiritual aspects, education should emphasize the importance of appreciating and understanding spiritual strengths as part of the learning process. Alongside this, it is important to recognize that good quality thinking will not arise from a poor scientific ecosystem. In other words, a healthy and high-quality academic environment and knowledge are prerequisites for critical and innovative thinking. By combining these two aspects, spiritual and intellectual, we can achieve better and more holistic thinking qualities and become more complete and balanced individuals. Ultimately, this comprehensive educational approach will enable us to make wiser and deeper decisions and face life’s challenges more effectively and efficiently.

Iqra’ and the quality of thinking

To realize the ideal role of a university as a place to search, understand, apply, and create new knowledge, high-quality thinking supported by sharp intuition is needed. The principle of “Iqra’“, the first verse revealed to Muhammad SAW in the Quran, emphasizes the importance of honing the qualities of good thinking and intuition. In Arabic, “Iqra’” means “read” and serves as a guiding principle in education worthy of application in universities.

The first step, reading, is the first step in the journey of learning. This means having to read and understand the material being taught. It is not just about reading the text but also includes understanding concepts and ideas.

The second stage is to delve deeper into, to go further into the next level where individuals reflect and question what they have read. They must critique and analyze information, attempting to understand deeper meanings. Education is not just about absorbing information but also about deep and critical understanding.

Thirdly, internalizing and practicing leads us to a stage where knowledge is applied in everyday life and professional work. Educational institutions should prepare individuals to utilize their knowledge in real-world contexts and help them connect what they have learned with the outside world.

The fourth Iqra’, which involves unveiling or discovering the wisdom behind everything, represents the stage of exploration and innovation. Educational institutions should encourage individuals to seek new knowledge and utilize what they learn to contribute to science and society at large.

By implementing the principles of Iqra’ in education and emphasizing the honing of high-quality thinking and sharp intuition, universities can help build a new generation of critical thinkers, innovators, and leaders ready to face the challenges of the world.

The philosophy of science regarding the quality of thinking

In the labyrinth of life and education, a philosopher offers us valuable guidance. His name is Søren Kierkegaard, and his theory, “Ethical Intellectualism,” serves as a guiding map that encapsulates the close relationship between moral goodness and intellectual intelligence.

According to Kierkegaard’s theory, individuals with good thinking, spiritual strength, and good habits tend to make ethical and wise decisions. He argues that quality thinking is not only formed by what appears on the surface but also influenced by supra-consciousness (inspiration) and subconsciousness (projection). Furthermore, spiritual strength and good habits play an important role in influencing the quality of one’s thinking.

In the world of education, Kierkegaard recognizes the importance of sharpening logical reasoning and spiritual strength, as if creating a new horizon in education. In his works such as “Either/Or” and “Fear and Trembling,” he portrays how true moral and intellectual life encompasses spiritual power and wisdom derived from intuition and experience, as well as good thinking and good habits.

Kierkegaard also recognizes the importance of a conducive environment in facilitating a good mental state and the process of inspiration. Therefore, building a supportive environment is integral to the Ethical Intellectualism approach. According to Kierkegaard, our physical and social environment influences how we think and feel and thus plays a crucial role in inspiring and helping us fully achieve our intellectual potential. Building a supportive and stimulating environment is vital to the Ethical Intellectualism approach. This conducive environment refers to a comfortable and safe physical environment and involves positive social relationships and a supportive community. In this way, every individual is provided with the space and resources necessary to grow and achieve intellectual excellence within an ethical and value-oriented context.

Through the lens of Ethical Intellectualism, we can see how in line it is with the principles of Iqra’. Among reading, delving into, experiencing and practicing, as well as contemplating, these principles are in line with Kierkegaard’s view on how individuals learn, grow, and contribute to society.

In line with Iqra’, Ethical Intellectualism reveals how deeper and critical learning, the application of knowledge in daily life and professional work, and discovery and innovation all become integral parts of quality education. Therefore, Ethical Intellectualism and the principles of Iqra’ complement and support each other in order to achieve good thinking quality in education.

Søren Kierkegaard, with his theory of “Ethical Intellectualism,” emphasizes the importance of the relationship between moral goodness, intellectual intelligence, and spiritual strength while acknowledging the role of a conducive environment in supporting good thinking quality.

10 – Hat-trick in science

Achievements in science indeed need to be viewed from the right perspective to appreciate scientists’ contributions to advancing knowledge. Scientific ethics emphasize that the person themselves should not do recognition of someone’s achievement but fellow scientists who appreciate their contribution. In this context, the concept of a “hat-trick” in science refers to a proud achievement for a scientist, where they manage to have their name recorded in three different award categories.

So, what is a “hat-trick” from a scientific perspective? In science, a “hat-trick” is achieved when a scientist manages to have their name recorded in three categories of recognition, such as the Nobel Prize, the naming of a reaction or principle, units of measurement, organization or journal names, or even adjectives. For example, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Marie Curie have achieved a “hat-trick” in science by etching their names in the following three categories:

Max Planck:
Nobel Prize in Physics,
Measurement unit and constant (Planck length, Planck constant), and
Organizational name (Max Planck Society).

Albert Einstein:
Nobel Prize in Physics,
Naming theory (Theory of Relativity), and
Measurement unit (Einsteinium, a chemical element named after him).

Marie Curie:
Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry,
The naming of the principle (Radioactivity), and
Measurement unit (Curie, unit of radioactivity).

The concept of a “hat-trick” in science indicates that scientists who achieve this feat have made significant contributions to advancing knowledge and technological progress. Therefore, society needs to change its perception of excellence in science and begin to appreciate such achievements. Through recognition and appreciation of scientists’ accomplishments, we will inspire a new generation to pursue “hat-tricks” in science and continue to contribute to the development of scientific knowledge.

It is important to appreciate the achievements of scientists and promote a culture of recognition of scientific success in order to create a conducive environment for innovation. By instilling this spirit in the younger generation, we can develop knowledge and technology for the well-being of humanity, correct perspectives in appreciating scientists, and create motivation for future generations. This also emphasizes the importance of recognizing and appreciating genuine scientists compared to those who are of lesser quality or can be called “fake scientists” in English but are more popular.

The Nobel Prize selection process involves considering various factors, depending on each nomination’s category and unique characteristics. These factors include innovation, impact, quality of work, relevance to contemporary challenges, sustainability of research or work, support and recognition from experts in the field, and integrity and ethical responsibility.

Innovation evaluates the extent to which an idea, discovery, or nominated work changes thinking or practices in its field. Meanwhile, impact assesses the influence of the nominated work on society, science, technology, or culture. The quality of the work is measured based on the expression of expertise, skill, or intelligence, as well as recognition from peers and experts in the field.

The relevance of the work to contemporary challenges is also an important consideration, particularly whether the contribution helps address important or urgent problems. The sustainability of the research or work is an indicator of potential further development and progress in the field. Recognition and support from experts in the field, research institutions, or relevant organizations are also important considerations, to what extent the relevant scientific or cultural community accepts the work. Lastly, integrity, honesty, and ethical responsibility in the work are also taken into account in the Nobel Prize selection process.

By understanding these various factors, we can appreciate the hard work, dedication, and contributions of scientists who have achieved a “hat-trick” in science. By valuing them, we can also inspire the younger generation to pursue similar achievements and continue to contribute to the development of science and technology. Additionally, it is important to correct the perception of society to have more respect for genuine scientists and stay away from “fake scientists” who only seek popularity. In this way, we can create an environment conducive to the growth and progress of science.

Philosophy of science regarding the superiority of science

In the context of the philosophy of science related to academic excellence, the theory of “scientific structuralism” proposed by the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn is the right choice. In his famous book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Kuhn explains that scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts caused by important scientific discoveries made by accomplished scientists.

Scientific structuralism explains how scientists like Max Planck, who achieved a “hat-trick” in science, made significant contributions to the development of knowledge. For example, Planck developed the quantum theory and discovered the Planck constant, which later became the foundation for modern quantum physics. Contributions like these often change how we understand the universe and open up new research and technology opportunities.

Kuhn acknowledges that scientists like Planck are examples of “revolutionary scientists” who bring paradigm shifts in science. The hat-trick achieved by Planck reflects the significant influence he had in the field of physics and science in general. The same applies to Albert Einstein and Marie Curie, who have also created “hat-tricks” in science.

The use of the term “hat-trick” to describe the achievements of scientists like Planck, Einstein, and Curie reflects Kuhn’s view on the important role of revolutionary scientists in the development of science. Scientific structuralism emphasizes the significance of these scientists’ contributions, which are engraved in awards, principles, units, or organizations, as evidence of their impact on scientific progress.

Thomas Kuhn and his theory on the “scientific revolution” explain how the development of science occurs through paradigm shifts triggered by significant scientific discoveries made by leading scientists.

11 – Recipe for a great scientific research

I remember my prediction on February 12, 2016, about the researchers of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) receiving the Nobel Prize in 2016. Although the timing of the prediction was not accurate, as they received it in 2017, I was able to successfully predict that the researchers of LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) would receive the Nobel Prize. Thanks to their revolutionary discovery in detecting gravitational waves, we can learn valuable lessons about success in the research world.

First, good research requires extraordinary time and dedication. Success in research often comes from long-term struggle and perseverance. It is important to remember that significant research cannot be achieved through shortcuts or instant efforts.

Furthermore, the impact of research should not be solely assessed based on the impact factor or other metrics commonly used in the academic world. The true impact of research should be measured based on the actual contributions generated by the publication, such as improvements in quality of life, development of new technologies, or solving global issues.

Fundamental research, especially in the field of basic science, often requires a critical mass of researchers working together to achieve significant results. Within a research team, the exchange of ideas, critical discussions, and interdisciplinary collaboration enable researchers to evaluate their approaches, foster healthy competition, and cultivate humility.

Researchers also serve as an incubator for multiplying ideas, a place where new ideas are discovered, developed, and perfected. Outstanding researchers are those who have the emotional resilience to face seemingly painful or tedious intellectual challenges. They have the ability to continue searching for solutions even in the face of dead ends and embrace the latest ideas.

One important quality that researchers must possess is the ability to learn to accept failure and uncertainty. However, resilience to keep trying and innovating is also highly important. Successful researchers live for the rare thrill that comes from new breakthroughs, which drives them to continue creating and discovering.

To achieve remarkable discoveries, researchers need time to think deeply and contemplate their ideas. High-quality research cannot be done in leisure time or under unfavorable conditions. The intense concentration and a comfortable, healthy, and happy environment are essential in conducting research.

By understanding the importance of time, dedication, collaboration, and resilience in research, we can better appreciate and acknowledge the efforts made by researchers in advancing science and technology. In the process, we can gain a deeper understanding of how high-quality research can help create solutions to the challenges faced by humanity.

In addition, the research support system needs to be strengthened to create a conducive environment for researchers. This includes adequate financial support, modern research facilities, and access to international networks in the field of research. Recognition and appreciation given to researchers are also important to motivate them to create new discoveries.

Education and training also play a crucial role in producing outstanding researchers. A good education program will equip researchers with the necessary skills to work efficiently in teams, develop innovative ideas, and uphold high research ethics.

Finally, creating an inclusive research culture is important, where researchers from various backgrounds, disciplines, and expertise can collaborate to achieve the same goals. Diversity in research allows teams to consider various perspectives and approaches, ultimately enhancing discoveries’ quality and relevance.

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) discovery teaches us many things about success in the world of research. Good research requires time, dedication, collaboration, and resilience. We can help create an environment conducive to new discoveries and scientific breakthroughs by supporting researchers through education, training, and adequate resources. In the process, we will have a greater appreciation for and appreciation of the efforts of the researchers who have contributed to the advancement of science and technology for the benefit of humanity.

The philosophy of science on great fundamental research

To explain high-impact fundamental research in the context of the philosophy of science, “falsificationism” introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper is the most suitable theory. Falsificationism emphasizes the importance of testing hypotheses in the process of scientific research and acknowledges the constantly changing and updatable nature of scientific knowledge as new evidence is discovered.

Successful fundamental research encompasses various principles that are relevant to falsificationism, such as the importance of accepting failure and being willing to test new ideas until a dead end is reached. Other principles, such as teamwork, competition, and humility, also demonstrate the need for researchers to be open to criticism and ready to change their views if evidence contradicting their hypotheses is found.

Karl Popper argued that scientific progress occurs when researchers try to prove their theories or hypotheses wrong (falsification) rather than trying to prove their truth (verification). Great scientific research requires this approach, emphasizing the importance of researchers who are “intellectual masochists” and willing to face failure and keep trying repeatedly until they achieve a breakthrough.

Karl Popper with his theory of falsificationism emphasizes the importance of hypothesis testing in scientific research and the willingness to revise scientific knowledge if new evidence is found. This is necessary to produce fundamental research.

12 – Rationalization of higher education

Higher education plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life, culture, knowledge, and international cooperation. However, the current higher education system seems to be hindered by dominant knowledge capitalism and social, economic, and political factors. This creates a debate about whether the higher education system is still aligned with its original purpose or has deviated from its essence.

Major companies such as Elsevier, Thomson Reuters, and QS have driven higher education toward a more quantitative and commercial direction. As a result, universities have become more aggressive and tend to forget “wisdom” as the core of education. The focus of education has shifted from human development to metric achievements and branding, such as World Class University and h-index.

The criticisms that emerge against the modern higher education system encompass various aspects, such as the loss of distinctive characteristics and the maximum potential possessed by universities as a result of administrative dominance. Additionally, issues in the relationship between research, technology, and higher education have caught the attention of some experts.

One of the important issues emphasized is the loss of the university’s uniqueness. Along with the development of increasingly complex and systematic administration, universities tend to experience homogenization and the loss of their respective characteristics. This can result in less creative, innovative, and adaptive education to the needs of individuals and society.

Another frequently raised issue is the unbalanced relationship between research, technology, and higher education. Research and technology are often seen as the top priority in higher education, which in turn overlooks the importance of developing ethical, moral, and humanistic values in the education process. Furthermore, technology and research are sometimes developed without considering the potential social, environmental, and cultural impacts.

Some experts have put forward the importance of reflecting on the values ​​contained in science and education. They suggest that higher education should focus more on the development of ethical, moral, and humanistic values ​​that are the foundation of knowledge and societal progress. In addition, they also emphasize the need to re-examine the essence of education to be more in line with the needs and challenges faced by individuals and society.

In order to create a higher education system that is more inclusive, holistic, and meaningful, there needs to be a paradigm shift in educational approaches and practices. This includes emphasizing the uniqueness of universities, incorporating values into science, and returning to the essence of education that aligns with society’s needs. By doing so, higher education can become a platform that promotes the overall progress of individuals and communities.

In order for the higher education system to function well, the epistemological process needs to be considered, including adequate scientific experience and research. For example, in the field of chemistry, research cannot be conducted without adequate laboratory facilities. Therefore, there is a need for introspection and reconsideration regarding higher education that is in line with the needs of the nation and the country.

One step that can be taken is to formulate a blueprint for higher education in Indonesia that involves intellectuals, cultural figures, scientists, and technocrats. Nevertheless, recognition should still be given to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology for their efforts in advancing higher education in Indonesia.

In order to liberate higher education from the shackles of capitalism, we need to engage reason and inner consciousness and reflect on the essence and purpose of education. Only in this way can we create a higher education system that is fairer, more inclusive, and beneficial to society at large, as well as capable of producing graduates who are ready to face global challenges and contribute to the progress of the nation.

Philosophy of science regarding the rationalization of higher education

The problems faced by the higher education system today are the tendency to emphasize quantitative and commercial aspects, the loss of focus on human development, and the dominance of the capitalist system in education. One of the most suitable theories of the philosophy of science to explain higher education policies is the social critique theory developed by the Frankfurt School, particularly Herbert Marcuse’s thoughts on “one-dimensional society” and total administration.

Marcuse perceives modern society as a homogenous system controlled by dominant forces like capitalism and bureaucracy. In the realm of higher education, Marcuse emphasizes how total administration has led to the loss of uniqueness and potential in every university. Criticism of modern science, which is overly mechanistic and neglectful of human values, aligns with Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s thoughts.

The epistemological anarchism approach proposed by Paul Feyerabend is also relevant to this topic. Feyerabend argues that no single method can be considered the best way to develop knowledge, and the principle “anything goes” should be applied in scientific research activities. This approach opposes authority and dogma in science and supports criticism of the highly structured and controlled higher education system.

To address this issue, it is important for us to reflect on the goals of education and design a higher education blueprint that is in line with the needs of the nation and the country. This involves active participation from various elements of society, such as intellectuals, cultural figures, scientists, and technocrats. Such solutions are in line with critical social thinking, which seeks social transformation through critical thinking and dialogue among interested groups. Thus, this change will help create a higher education system that is more inclusive, fair, and focused on the holistic development of individuals.

The social critic theory of Herbert Marcuse regarding “one-dimensional society” highlights the danger of total administration that eliminates differences and critical thinking. Seyyed Hossein Nasr reminds us of the importance of considering human values in education and science. The epistemological anarchism approach of Paul Feyerabend emphasizes the diversity of methods in advancing knowledge.

13 – Facts and opinions

According to the report “21^st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills In A Digital World” from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), it is crucial to enhance the skill of differentiating between facts and opinions. The report delves into the connection between reading skills and the capability to distinguish between facts and opinions across different nations.

For example, the United States demonstrates a high level of literacy skills in distinguishing between facts and opinions, achieving a score of 69% which is above the overall reading average. These results likely reflect differences in curricula between countries. On the other hand, Indonesia still faces significant challenges in improving achievement in this field.

The ability to distinguish between facts and opinions is becoming increasingly important in the era of rapid development of information technology. As W. Edwards Deming, a legend in the engineering world, said, without accurate data, we merely become people with opinions. As a lecturer and researcher in the field of chemistry, I am very aware of the importance of data and facts in building a strong scientific foundation.

Debates that emphasize opinions over facts often occur. To address this problem, we need to enhance our ability to distinguish between the two. One effective way is by constantly asking ourselves, “Can this statement be proven?” If the answer is yes, then it is likely a fact.

In addition, it is important for us to seek reliable sources of information. Facts are usually supported by evidence that can be found in books, journals, and credible online sources. Facts are objective and unbiased, while opinions tend to be subjective and aim to influence others.

We must be wary of the dangers of attention-grabbing rhetoric. Many intelligent people are capable of delivering convincing opinions that can easily trap us in flawed thinking. Therefore, we need to prioritize critical thinking and focus on facts, not opinions.

Always learning and honing the ability to sift through information is key to making more accurate decisions and avoiding mistakes caused by incorrect assumptions or biases. Let’s together face the challenge of distinguishing between facts and opinions in today’s digital era.

Philosophy of science concerning facts and opinions

In explaining the difference between facts and opinions in the context of the philosophy of science, falsificationism introduced by Karl Popper is a fitting theory. Falsificationism emphasizes the importance of scientific methods in testing and evaluating claims based on evidence and testable data. This approach is highly relevant in discussing facts and opinions, including distinguishing between the two and highlighting the vital role of data and evidence in the process.

Karl Popper emphasized the importance of criticism and skepticism in the scientific process. He argued that a scientific theory or claim must be testable and able to be proven wrong. If a theory or claim cannot be tested, then it is considered unscientific. It is important to distinguish between facts and opinions, which is consistent with the principles of falsificationism.

Popper also emphasizes the importance of checking sources of information and using objective data to reduce bias and false assumptions. When distinguishing facts from opinions, it is important to use reliable sources of information to support claims and facts.

Therefore, falsificationism and philosopher Karl Popper accurately explain facts and opinions. The concepts in falsificationism reflect the importance of data, evidence, and reliable sources of information in distinguishing facts and opinions, as well as the role of criticism and skepticism in analyzing claims and information conveyed by others.

Falsificationism, a philosophy of science theory proposed by Karl Popper, emphasizes the importance of testing and evaluating claims based on testable and provable evidence and data while valuing criticism and skepticism in the scientific process.

14 – Justification and truth

As a researcher with over twenty years of experience, I have learned many things about the world of research. One of them is the importance of distinguishing between research designed to validate hypotheses and research designed to seek scientific truth. Along this journey, I have found that the pressure to publish often becomes a factor that drives researchers to design their studies more to validate hypotheses rather than to seek the truth.

Confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek, interpret, or remember information that supports existing beliefs or hypotheses, often plays a role in this. This bias can lead to less objective research, where researchers only focus on data that supports their theories and ignore conflicting data. For example, a researcher may design a study to prove the superiority of a product by selectively choosing a sample that supports the product and ignoring other factors that may influence the results.

Justification is often used as a method to fulfill publication requirements. For example, when research results do not meet expectations, researchers may seek justification by referring to sources that only support those results rather than seeking truth by referring to all relevant references, both supporting and non-supporting. Unfortunately, many papers that only aim to justify hypotheses end up being published, while the importance of seeking truth is often overlooked.

However, I believe that as scientists and researchers, we should strive to seek the truth. Overcoming confirmation bias and striving to be objective in presenting data and opinions is important in achieving this goal. If research is only focused on publication and generated through justification rather than seeking the truth, the results may not contribute much to the development of science and technology.

The phenomenon of “publish or perish” in the academic world may indeed push researchers to publish as much as possible, but such research may be less substantial and contribute less to human knowledge. Therefore, it is important for us to openly and critically discuss the quality and purpose of research.

We must always remember that every research has its own value and potential to contribute to human knowledge. Therefore, we must ensure that quality and scientific integrity are prioritized in the research we conduct. To avoid confirmation bias, researchers must conduct comprehensive and balanced literature reviews and present their research findings honestly and transparently. Recognizing and responding to criticism or conflicting findings can strengthen the research and make it more credible.

As scientists and researchers, we must understand that justification is insufficient. Seeking scientific truth is the main goal that we should pursue. Although it may be complex and challenging, that is our duty. Ensuring that our research contributes significantly to human knowledge, not just adding to the list of publications, is important.

Research that only seeks validation is not good research. Such results only fill the space of publications without providing significant contributions to the development of science and technology. Moreover, this kind of research can damage the reputation and integrity of the academic and research community.

We must always strive to seek the truth, not justification. We must strive to fight confirmation bias and commit to the integrity and quality of research. In this way, we can help advance science and make a real contribution to human knowledge.

Scientific truth in the era of information

Scientific truth is the primary foundation for building knowledge and societal development. However, this paradigm seems to be distorted in the current digital era, especially with the phenomenon of viral news that often reduces the complexity and richness of scientific knowledge to merely catchy headlines and brief content.

The dissemination of scientific information through digital media has tremendous potential to educate and empower society. However, this potential can backfire when scientific knowledge is understood and spread indiscriminately, solely for the purpose of viralization or to pursue popularity and recognition within the scientific community. When scientific knowledge becomes the object of “viralization,” its truth and complexity are often sacrificed for a simpler and more compelling narrative. This gives rise to what can be called “scientific shallowness,” where society accepts shallow and often incomplete scientific information.

This situation is also evident in the academic world, where researchers and scientists often feel compelled to pursue publications in order to gain recognition and accolades from the academic community. The number of publications and how often other researchers cite their work becomes the main parameter in assessing academic achievements. In this process, scientific truth and research quality can be overlooked. We must understand that academic recognition and accolades are only indicators of many aspects that should be valued in the field of science.

We need to return to the essence of scientific truth and appreciate the process of research that is both integral and high-quality. It is not just about focusing on the number of publications or the popularity of research but also about the real impact and benefits that research can provide for the development of knowledge.

Science philosophy regarding justification and truth

The pragmatism movement best represents the concept of justification and truth in science philosophy, which closely ties to the ideas of prominent thinkers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. As a doctrine that emphasizes the importance of practicality and efficiency in thinking and acting, pragmatism believes that truth is valuable and operates effectively in specific situations.

There is a difference between seeking justification and truth. Pragmatism acknowledges that justification often becomes the primary goal in scientific research due to the pressure to produce publications, but this theory also asserts that truth should be the ultimate goal in research. In this regard, pragmatism recognizes the distinction between justification and truth and emphasizes the importance of seeking truth for the advancement of science.

Pragmatist philosophers like Peirce and James argue that truth is not something fixed and absolute but rather something that evolves with time and circumstances. They believe that researchers should continuously seek truth through scientific methods and criticism and that truth will be discovered through an ongoing process and communication among various researchers and disciplines.

John Dewey, one of the most prominent pragmatist philosophers, emphasizes the importance of creating an environment that supports honest inquiry and the search for truth. According to Dewey, education and research should be driven by a desire to discover truth rather than simply seeking justification or fulfilling publication requirements.

Therefore, the theory of pragmatism and philosophers like Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey are theories that can serve as a philosophical foundation regarding truth and justification. They acknowledge the pressure to seek justification in scientific research and emphasize the importance of seeking truth as the primary goal in research.

Pragmatist philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey emphasize the importance of seeking truth in research and education and that justification is only a temporary goal in the process of seeking a broader truth.

15 – Intelligence and wisdom

Many people often explain and define the meaning of intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence considered the ability to think quickly and understand concepts or ideas, is often seen as the main measure of someone’s success. However, it is important to remember that intelligence is not the only factor that determines success and happiness in life.

One thing to understand is that mistakes are not a determining factor of someone’s intelligence. Mistakes are an important element of experiences that shape us into wiser individuals. In the learning process, mistakes help us identify areas that need improvement and encourage personal growth. By learning from mistakes, we not only become smarter but also wiser.

Wisdom means being able to understand and accept one’s limitations, as well as applying knowledge in the appropriate way to achieve reasonable goals. Wisdom is a quality that can be learned throughout life, unlike intelligence which tends to be genetic and difficult to change. Wisdom helps us face challenges with more calmness, patience, and effectiveness.

Unfortunately, society often judges someone based on their intelligence, causing those with high levels of intelligence to have excessive self-confidence. In the end, this can hinder the development of wisdom, as they are more prone to impatience when faced with situations that require careful consideration and empathy.

Therefore, it is important for us to distinguish between intelligence and wisdom and to appreciate both in a balanced way. Someone wise may not always be the smartest, but that wisdom will help them deal with various situations and make better decisions. We should strive to develop wisdom throughout our lives and not just rely on intelligence as the main measure of success and happiness.

To become a successful scientist, wisdom is highly necessary. Although intelligence is considered an important aspect in one’s success, wisdom also plays a significant role in facing challenges and making good decisions. Wisdom allows a person to learn from mistakes, overcome personal limitations, and apply knowledge in the right way.

A wise scientist is able to handle situations that require careful consideration and empathy, as well as develop effective and innovative solutions. Therefore, in pursuing success as a scientist, it is important for us to appreciate and cultivate wisdom throughout our lives, not just rely on intelligence as the main benchmark.

Wisdom is also important in collaboration and cooperation with other scientists and professionals. A wise scientist can communicate effectively, listen and respect the opinions of others, and work together to achieve common goals. In addition, wisdom helps scientists face ethical dilemmas and ensures their research is conducted with integrity and responsibility.

Education and experience play a crucial role in developing wisdom. Through the process of learning, we gather knowledge and experiences that can aid us in making better decisions. However, to indeed be wise, we must continue to learn, be open to change, and recognize and accept our limitations.

Intelligence and wisdom are both important in achieving success and happiness in life. Intelligence may be a crucial aspect of someone’s success, but wisdom also plays a significant role in facing challenges and making good decisions. Therefore, it is important for us to appreciate and develop wisdom throughout our lives, not just rely on intelligence as the main measure of success and happiness. Combining intelligence and wisdom will make us more complete and successful individuals in various aspects of life.

Wise, clever, and intelligent meaning

The article discusses wisdom and discretion extensively, but unfortunately, most of them are written in English. In this context, this article attempts to translate the concept of wisdom based on the online Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI) definition. This explanation aims to clarify the understanding of wisdom and identify which actions reflect a wise attitude. Unfortunately, many people possess intelligence and expertise but lack wisdom.

In the KBBI, wisdom is defined as the state in which individuals always use their intellect; smart (pandai); skillful (mahir). Therefore, wisdom can be defined as the state in which individuals use both intellect and wisdom together. In other words, to be wise, experience and knowledge-based intellect are required in everyday life. This aims to make life simple, orderly, calm, and meaningful with peaceful thoughts.

In Indonesian, other words have similar meanings to wise (bijak), namely clever (cerdik) and smart (pandai). According to KBBI, clever (cerdik) means quick understanding of the situation and finding solutions. However, in cleverness, there is a negative element: cunning, meaning benefiting oneself through trickery and possibly taking advantage of others.

Meanwhile, smart according to KBBI is a condition where an individual has a good and quick brain ability to analyze something. Smart is defined as fast learning and understanding. Smartness is also related to ability and skill.

Based on the explanation above, it is clear that there is a difference between wise (bijak), namely clever (cerdik) and smart (pandai). In cleverness, there are elements that benefit oneself in a cunning way, while in smartness, there is no element of deception or slyness, but it is more related to expertise and skills.

Understanding wise (bijak), namely clever (cerdik) and smart (pandai) is crucial in the context of education. The aim is not to create individuals who are merely clever and cunning but also wise – possessing sharp wisdom. Wisdom encompasses truth, knowledge, and good judgment about something. Essentially, being wise means having the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Wise individuals always maintain their thoughts and behavior, while clever individuals may tend to use their minds to achieve personal gain by outsmarting others. The way wise individuals think is usually different.

In life, all phenomena and decisions made always have both good and bad sides. No matter how good something is, there is still a negative aspect contained within it, and vice versa. In this life, nothing is perfect. If one can only see the good or bad side, it means they are not truly wise. To be wise, one needs to see the whole picture and understand the pros and cons of every phenomenon.

However, being wise does not mean knowing everything. Wise individuals are aware that there are still many things they do not know. Nevertheless, they know what they need to do to seek that knowledge. Wise individuals will not misuse their intelligence to exploit others cunningly for personal gain.

The lotus flower is often used as a symbol of wisdom. This beautiful flower grows in dark-colored ponds, depicting how we should learn from nature. Despite living in a materialistic and deceitful society, wise individuals are not affected by it and choose to learn how to live the right way.

The complexity of the world and the wasathiyah

The following poem explains that a world full of complexities requires a wise perspective.

In the labyrinth of the world, spinning His complex thread,
A gift from Him, like an eternal mosaic.
Look with the eyes of knowledge, feel with a heart of wisdom,
In every breath, there's a hidden wisdom, embedded in consciousness.

Owls in the night, gazing in the unlit darkness,
Wild wolves, guarding the herd, knitting life's order.
The fierce tiger, the frail deer, each has a role,
Every creation, inevitable in their complexity and intricacy.

And so it is with humans, interwoven in diversity,
Competing in life, from the gentle to the harsh.
But all of this, weighed by the way we perceive,
Is there light in the dark, is there good in evil?

Nowadays, many are knowledgeable, but lose their wisdom,
Leaning on knowledge, but lost in interpretation.
Forgetful of Wasathiyah, the moderate pillar that regulates balance,
Teaching that the world is not only about black and white, but also grey.

Reflecting on nature, behold the complexity in its simplicity,
Learn from His creations, that there is beauty in diversity.
We must learn, not just knowledge but also wisdom,
Life is learning, it is a journey towards wholeness.

Do not let yourself become a victim of your own truth,
A wise person is not only knowledgeable, but also understanding.
Diversity is a gift, difference is a bridge to unity,
Let's learn from the world, learn from wisdom, learn from Wasathiyah.

Wasathiyah, the link between knowledge and wisdom,
A principle of life, leading us to the middle path.
Seeing the world not only with eyes, but also with heart and mind,
Let us walk together, towards a better, wiser, and fairer life.

The philosophy of science on intelligence and wisdom

The critical rationalism of Karl Popper is the philosophical foundation that elucidates the important role of intelligence and wisdom in the pursuit of scientific truth. Popper emphasizes the value of criticism, knowledge, and logic in this process while highlighting the fundamental difference between intelligence and wisdom. He argues that scientific progress does not solely originate from intelligence used to uncover new knowledge but also from wisdom in applying it in a proper and ethical manner.

Popper teaches that learning from mistakes and recognizing the limitations of our knowledge is an important aspect of wisdom that is often overlooked in favor of short-term intelligence pursuits. Critical rationalism combines elements of rationalism and empiricism and places criticism, falsification, and an open mindset as key components in understanding and controlling ourselves as part of broader wisdom.

The concept of critical rationalism developed by Popper has made significant contributions in the fields of philosophy of science, epistemology, and scientific methodology. Popper shows that the search for scientific truth should involve a balanced combination of intelligence and wisdom, as well as an awareness of the limitations of our knowledge. This invites us to constantly strive to expand our knowledge while maintaining humility and an awareness of our shortcomings and limitations in our understanding of the world.

Thus, Karl Popper’s critical rationalism emphasizes the importance of a balanced and critical approach in scientific research, which recognizes the role of both intelligence and wisdom in discovering the truth. Through this thinking, Popper has influenced generations of scientists and philosophers in their efforts to understand and uncover scientific truth and in the wise and ethical application of the knowledge discovered.

Karl Popper’s critical rationalism emphasizes criticism, knowledge, and logic in the quest for truth, as well as distinguishing between intelligence and wisdom.

16 – Future of scientific publications

The proposal by the late Professor Walter Noll, a mathematics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, regarding the future of scientific publications that I am reiterating is exciting and may potentially serve as a consideration for decision-makers at the university and national levels in promoting the advancement of science and technology and freeing themselves from the constraints of commercializing scientific knowledge through increasingly expensive scientific publications that cannot be afforded by researchers (who are poor) from developing countries.

Below is Professor Walter’s proposal which I summarized from his paper.

• Every scientist should be encouraged to create their website and publish all their work on this website. First, most universities and research institutions can now easily create such websites. Second, publishers and printers are no longer needed for typesetting. Most scientists have learned how to typeset their documents using computer software like TeX. Even today, almost all scientific journals require papers to be submitted in typeset form.
• The requirements to obtain a Ph.D. degree need to be changed. Doctoral candidates must submit their thesis on a website created by the university in their name. Ph.D. examiners can then review the thesis by reading it on their computer screens or printing it. Additionally, instead of making the thesis into one document, it can be a collection of several research papers. The committee must decide if there is enough material to justify a Ph.D. degree. In this way, much bureaucracy can be avoided.
• Scientists should no longer feel that their work needs to be submitted to journals. If publications are on their websites, they can be accessed by anyone in the world who is interested, even more quickly than through journals. When evaluating the value of work to decide on promotions and tenure, this can be done simply by submitting a list of titles from the website to reviewers when requesting recommendations. No need for reprinting or preprinting anymore. Some drawbacks of the “publish or perish syndrome” can be avoided because promotion committees will not be tempted only to count the number of papers published by candidates rather than conducting a thorough quality check.
• If a work has been published on its website, the author can easily make corrections and improvements frequently. If it has been published traditionally, then it becomes frozen and challenging to publish corrections and improvements. Also, someone can post an introductory manuscript on a website and eventually complete it.
• A scientist can easily find out about papers that may be relevant to them by typing keywords into Google or perhaps into a search engine specializing in science. This will take them to websites with papers that may be worth looking at. Some indications of a paper’s value are how many times the paper has been viewed or linked to. This aligns with the current citation index. In fact, the founders of Google used this citation index model to rank responses when typing in a search. I am confident that it is unavoidable that the system I propose here, or its variations, will eventually be implemented.

Although this idea seems interesting, several challenges need to be overcome before this concept can be widely implemented. Replacing the capitalist-dominated scientific publishing system with the personal websites of scientists has great potential to improve the accessibility and transparency of research. However, several challenges must be faced before this concept can be implemented widely.

One of the main concerns is how to ensure the quality of published research, given the lack of consistent peer review. Creating a recognition system that allows researchers to build their reputation and credibility in their field poses a challenge.

Then, there are issues related to indexing and searching, as well as copyright protection and licensing. Finally, finding alternative sources of funding that support infrastructure and operational costs of scholarly publishing will be important in a more decentralized system.

Although several challenges need to be overcome, with technological advancements and innovation in business models, there will be a possibility to integrate some aspects of this proposal into the current scientific publishing system. This will create a more inclusive and accessible environment for researchers worldwide, reducing barriers to sharing knowledge and information.

Philosophy of science concerning the future of scientific publishing

The current digital era has given birth to the concept of open science, a topic that is increasingly attracting the interest of scientists and researchers worldwide. Open science encompasses open access, collaboration, and transparency in the scientific process, to reduce publication costs, facilitate knowledge access, and foster collaboration among researchers.

The concept of open science is in line with the philosophy of science, especially as developed by Karl Popper. Although Popper does not specifically use the term “open science,” the principles in his philosophy of science are very suitable. Popper argues that science must be based on falsification, meaning that scientific theories must be testable and refutable. He emphasizes the importance of criticism and open debate in the scientific process, which aligns with the principles of open science: freely sharing knowledge and data, collaboration, and transparency in research.

Philosophical support for open science does not stop at Popper. Other philosophers also argue that open access and transparency in research and publication can enhance efficiency and fairness in the research system. This means that open science can facilitate more integrated and collaborative research, avoid duplication of work, and distribute resources fairly.

Figures like Michael Nielsen, Peter Suber, and John Willinsky have been pioneers in the open science movement, emphasizing values such as collaboration, inclusion, and transparency. They have helped create a more inclusive and democratic research ecosystem.

However, open science also faces challenges, including copyright issues, sustainable business models, and data privacy protection. Governments, research institutions, and publishers must seek solutions to these challenges together.

Real examples of successful implementation of open science can be seen in projects like the Human Genome Project and open science platforms like arXiv, bioRxiv, and ResearchGate. Through these platforms, researchers are able to share their research findings before going through the traditional peer-review process, providing greater opportunities for students and educators to access current knowledge.

However, questions about the future of open science still need to be answered, such as how to ensure the quality and integrity of research in a more open system, protect copyright and intellectual property while promoting open access, and create a sustainable business model to support open science.

By understanding the concept of open science in the context of the philosophy of science and with the support of relevant figures, we can see that the adoption of open science is an important step towards a more efficient and fair research system.

Karl Popper is a philosopher associated with the theory of philosophy of science and the concept of open science. The philosophy of science theory developed by him emphasizes the importance of falsification or testing theories to test the truth and scientific reliability of an idea or concept.

17 – Different perceptions

The differences in perception from a scientific standpoint are important to understand and appreciate in comprehending social issues. In order to see the complex world and solve intricate social problems, we need to consider different perspectives and think ontologically, meaning understanding the essence of a phenomenon. Different perceptions reflect how different individuals see and understand the world around them, influenced by their background, experiences, and environment.

Unlike exact science, social science has a much larger and uncertain number of variables. While exact science tends to be easier to measure and predict, social science involves various complex and interconnected human factors. In social science, we face differences in values, beliefs, and norms that shape individual and collective perspectives and various external factors that influence social interaction patterns. Therefore, social science often requires more flexible thinking and subtle nuances in understanding and addressing social issues.

One way to address the complexity of social science is by using a “social research approach” or a social research method. The social research approach involves various qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data and information about social phenomena. Through this approach, researchers can explore various aspects of social issues, understand different perceptions and perspectives, and identify patterns and relationships that may not be directly visible.

Research in social science involves collecting data to understand phenomena, using three main methods: exploratory research that investigates unfamiliar issues, explanatory research that tests hypotheses about the relationship between different aspects of an issue, and descriptive research that provides detailed descriptions to expand initial understanding. Researchers’ perspectives can be objective, describing unbiased reality, or subjective, focusing on individual experiences and interpretations. Objective research, or positivism, uses a quantitative methodology for findings that can be generalized. On the other hand, subjective research, or interpretivism, relies on qualitative data from observations or interviews to understand people’s perspectives and experiences.

In science, perception is described as the process of achieving awareness or understanding of sensory information involving cognitive processes in which information is processed and integrated with other information in one’s mind. Factors such as environment, culture, and individual experiences can influence their perception. Therefore, it is important to be aware that negative perceptions can arise as a result of unhealthy mental factors, such as hatred. These negative perceptions can be avoided by adopting a wiser and more open-minded perspective, thereby reducing the impact of hatred on our understanding.

In understanding social issues, it is important to appreciate different perspectives from different individuals, especially given the greater complexity and uncertainty in social sciences. Through social research, we can gather and analyze data from various sources and perspectives to create more inclusive and effective solutions to addressing social problems. Therefore, we should focus on how perception influences our understanding and continuously strive to understand others’ perspectives to achieve better understanding and solutions. By appreciating the differences in views and approaches within social sciences, we will be better able to understand and address the challenges faced by society.

Using a social research approach also allows us to validate and test hypotheses that arise from various perceptions. We can better understand complex social issues by combining qualitative methods, such as interviews, participatory observation, or text analysis, with quantitative methods, such as surveys, statistical analysis, or experiments.

Furthermore, the social research approach promotes collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders, enabling a deeper knowledge and understanding of social issues. Through this collaboration, we can create more effective and sustainable solutions and ensure that various perspectives and interests are valued and integrated into the decision-making process.

Therefore, in facing complex and complicated social issues, it is important to utilize a social research approach that encompasses various methods and perspectives while appreciating the differences in perceptions among individuals and groups. In this way, we will be better able to understand and address the challenges faced by society and create more inclusive, effective, and sustainable solutions to social problems.

Philosophy of science regarding perception

The theories of philosophical constructivism and phenomenology focus on how individuals understand the world through their experiences and perceptions. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl have made significant contributions to developing these theories.

Immanuel Kant presented his thoughts on the origin of human knowledge in his famous work, “Critique of Pure Reason.” Kant argues that human knowledge is formed through the interaction between the external world and the mental or cognitive structures we possess. In his view, true reality or “Ding an sich” cannot be directly accessed by human beings, as we can only understand phenomena through the way we process information and experiences obtained from the outside world. Kant’s perspective emphasizes the importance of recognizing that different perceptions stem from the interaction between individuals and their world and the cognitive structures they possess. In other words, our mental and cognitive structures greatly influence how we understand and respond to the world.

Meanwhile, Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, took a different approach to understanding reality. Husserl focuses on human experience and consciousness as the foundation for understanding reality. As a philosophical movement advocated by Husserl, phenomenology emphasizes the importance of exploring the world’s experiences from the perspective of the individual experiencing it to understand how reality is shaped and perceived. Phenomenology highlights the importance of acknowledging that different perceptions are the result of unique individual experiences and consciousness. Husserl’s thinking suggests that we cannot disregard the role of personal experience and human consciousness in shaping how we understand the world and the reality around us.

Through constructivism and phenomenology, these two philosophers provide a framework for understanding how different perceptions can arise from different experiences, backgrounds, and cognitive structures. Recognizing that different perceptions exist and are valid, and striving to see the world from another person’s perspective, is an important step in understanding the complex world and achieving a better understanding of others and the differences that exist among us.

Immanuel Kant with his theory of constructivism that focuses on knowledge derived from the interaction between the external world and cognitive structures, and Edmund Husserl on phenomenology which explains the understanding of reality through individual experiences and consciousness.

18 – Contribution of social science scholars

I once knew a famous Indonesian writer who criticized Indonesian social science scholars for seemingly only being skilled at quoting others’ opinions. This concern appears to have a strong basis after observing social science scholars’ writings in various mass media and social science journals. One of the main causes of the lack of original and innovative thinking among social science scholars is the minimal field research they conduct.

Field research, or grounded research, is a research method that requires collecting data directly from the source or object being studied. Unfortunately, most writings on social issues in some countries are actually written by foreign researchers, who may have a limited understanding of the local social and cultural context. This is also true for other social sciences disciplines such as sociology, education, psychology, politics, and so on.

By conducting a search on Google Scholar, we can find that there is a tendency where social science scholars are less active in conducting field research in Indonesia. As a result, they tend to rely on existing theories and research or quote others’ opinions rather than creating original ideas based on their own field research. More ironically, we can find that authors of books on grounded research often never conduct this type of research themselves. This means they only write books based on other people’s experiences without ever conducting this research themselves.

Grounded research or grounded theory is a qualitative research method developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. This method aims to generate new theories or concepts that emerge from collected and analyzed data rather than testing or verifying existing theories. In grounded research, researchers use a systematic and iterative process to identify, categorize, and explain patterns that emerge in the data and develop theories or concepts based on these patterns.

The grounded research method has many benefits for the development of science. First, grounded research enables researchers to produce new theories and concepts that may not yet exist or have been identified in existing scientific literature. This helps fill knowledge gaps and expands our understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Grounded research is also very useful in understanding complex and multidimensional phenomena, as researchers can explore various aspects and perspectives that may be overlooked in more structured or quantitative research. This method also provides flexibility for researchers to change the focus of their research as they discover new information or encounter unexpected phenomena. This makes research more responsive and adaptive to the needs and challenges that arise during the research process.

In addition, grounded research can provide a deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied because researchers can explore more complex and dynamic relationships between different concepts. This method can also enhance the credibility and validity of research findings as researchers systematically gather and analyze data to generate theories based on strong empirical evidence.

In addressing social problems, a more serious effort is needed from social scientists to conduct in-depth field research and produce original thinking that can provide concrete solutions. We must begin to tap into the potential of social scientists so that they can become pioneers in facing and solving issues in various countries. Only in this way can we improve social conditions and build a better society.

The importance of soft power

Indonesia, as a country with the world’s largest population and a strategic geographic position, has the potential to become a significant player on the international stage. However, in order to achieve this position, the country must consider its soft power. Soft power refers to a country’s ability to influence other countries through the attractiveness of its culture, values, ideas, and effective diplomacy.

One indicator of soft power is a country’s intellectual and cultural influence on a global level. However, most articles and studies about Indonesia in international journals are written by foreigners. This reflects the low participation of Indonesian social scientists in global discussions and indirectly weakens the country’s soft power.

From this perspective, the role of Indonesian social scientists becomes very important. They must play an active role in producing quality research that can influence the global discourse about Indonesia. In doing so, they will help strengthen Indonesia’s image and influence in the international world.

To achieve this goal, Indonesian social scientists need to improve the quality of research, collaborate with international researchers, and promote Indonesian culture and values. They also need to encourage education and human resource development in the field of social sciences, advocate for national interests, strengthen networks with international organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), optimize the use of media and technology, and build academic diplomacy with foreign institutions and researchers.

Indonesian social scientists must work hard and be committed to achieving those goals. Only by doing so will Indonesia be able to strengthen its soft power and take a more strategic and robust position in national defense in the future.

Philosophy of science regarding social science researchers

Thomas Kuhn, with his theory about the structure of scientific revolutions, is suitable for explaining the role of scientists, including social scientists, in the development of knowledge. Kuhn argues that science does not always progress cumulatively through the accumulation of knowledge but through paradigm shifts that underlie how scientists understand the world.

Kuhn can help explain why some social science scholars in Indonesia seem to be more focused on citing the opinions of others rather than developing their own original thoughts or ideas. According to Kuhn, knowledge develops in cycles that involve a “normal science” period where scientists work within existing paradigms and accept established thoughts and theories. During this phase, scientists tend to reinforce and develop existing theories rather than create new ones.

However, Kuhn also emphasizes that the period of normal science will be followed by a scientific revolution when anomalies or problems that existing theories cannot explain arise and lead to a paradigm shift. This scientific revolution produces new theories and thoughts that replace the old ones.

Social science scholars need to conduct field research and produce original thoughts, not just quote the opinions of others. From Kuhn’s perspective, social scientists who engage in field research and generate new findings can contribute to paradigm shifts in their field and produce new theories more appropriate for explaining social phenomena in Indonesia.

Thomas Kuhn’s theory on the structure of scientific revolutions can explain why some social science scholars in Indonesia are more focused on citing the opinions of others rather than developing their own original thoughts or ideas. In this regard, it is important to emphasize the significance of field research and original thinking in the field of social sciences to help address social issues in Indonesia.

Thomas Kuhn, with his theory on the structure of scientific revolutions, explains the role of scientists in the development of knowledge and how science evolves through paradigm shifts rather than just cumulative knowledge additions.

19 – Muslims who are left behind

The book “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment” by Ahmet Kuru offers an exciting and profound view of the relationship between Islam, politics, and development in Muslim countries. By reading and understanding this book, we can gain valuable lessons and obtain a new perspective in understanding the phenomenon of Muslim lag in areas such as economics, science, technology, and others. This book challenges traditional views and provides a more complex and varied analysis of this topic, thus helping us understand the causes and solutions to overcome these issues.

Kuru presents three main arguments. The first is the similarity between aspects of Islamic tradition and authoritarian practices and the impact of Islamic resurgence on economic and democratic development. Second, the role of Islamic states in development and the challenges and limitations of Islamic capitalism as an alternative to Western capitalism. Third, the influence of internal and external factors on development in Muslim countries, such as foreign intervention, corruption, and poor economic policies.

The aspects of Islamic tradition and authoritarian practices

In his book “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” Ahmet Kuru explains that there are several similarities between aspects of Islamic tradition and authoritarian practices in some Muslim countries. One of the similarities is the presence of authoritarian leadership often based on the belief that political and religious leaders are guardians and interpreters of religious law and doctrine. This creates a centralized power structure and reduces space for political opposition and differing opinions.

In addition, authoritarian governments in many Muslim countries also use religious doctrine as a tool to suppress political opposition and control society. In some cases, dissent or criticism against the government can be seen as a form of blasphemy or even treason, resulting in harsh punishments.

The authoritarian political system in many Muslim countries also prioritizes political stability over the protection of individual rights and civil liberties. This is often achieved through strict control over the media, education, and other social institutions and surveillance and suppression of groups perceived as threats to the existing power.

In some Muslim countries, authoritarian governments also use religious laws and institutions to strengthen their power and control society. This can have an impact on human rights violations and internal conflicts.

Although the Islamic revival movement has the potential to positively influence Muslim countries by promoting values of social justice, community welfare, and women’s empowerment, if used in an authoritarian or intolerant manner, it can lead to oppression, human rights violations, and internal conflicts.

Therefore, there is a need for reform within the Muslim community by improving their ideas, policies, and institutions. This reform also needs to address the issues of anti-intellectualism and state control over the economy and create a new political perspective that doesn’t solely rely on political theories from the Middle Ages. It is important not to uphold authoritarian and patriarchal political theories such as the alliance between religious scholars and the state. Furthermore, there is a need to establish a competitive and meritocratic system in politics and economics and encourage the emergence of creative intellectuals and an independent bourgeois class to balance the power of religious scholars and state authority. The Muslim community can achieve economic and social progress by implementing appropriate reforms and promoting democratization within their respective countries.

Islamic capitalism

In his book, “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” Ahmet Kuru discusses Islamic capitalism as an alternative model to Western capitalism based on Islamic principles and values. However, Kuru also outlines several challenges and limitations of Islamic capitalism, including the lack of uniformity in the application of Islamic economic principles, the relatively small size of the Islamic financial system compared to conventional banking sectors, weak corporate governance practices, restrictions on investments and business sectors deemed incompatible with religious principles, difficulties in integrating with the global economy, political and social influences creating political instability, and a lack of focus on innovation and human resource development.

Islamic capitalism emphasizes business ethics, transparency, and accountability, but weak corporate governance practices and endemic corruption can hinder the effective implementation of these values. Although Islamic capitalism offers an intriguing alternative to the Western capitalist model by emphasizing ethics and religious values, this system faces several challenges and limitations.

The influence of internal and external factors on development

Ahmet Kuru raises an important question about the role of Islam in promoting democracy and inclusive and sustainable development in Muslim countries. However, the influence of internal and external factors on development in Muslim countries also plays a significant role. Some examples of these factors include:

First, foreign interventions, such as military invasions, political support, or economic aid, can impact development in Muslim countries. These interventions can have positive effects, such as assisting in infrastructure building or supporting political and economic reforms, but they can also have negative consequences, such as creating political instability, replacing legitimate governments, or triggering internal conflicts.

Secondly, corruption is a major internal factor that hampers development in many Muslim countries. Corruption can harm the economy by diverting resources that should be used for the public interest, reducing the efficiency of public spending, and diminishing investor confidence.

Thirdly, poor economic policies such as protectionism, price controls, or inefficient fiscal management can hinder economic growth and development in Muslim countries.

Fourthly, political instability, political turmoil, coups, or internal conflicts can destroy infrastructure, disrupt public services, and restrain investment. Political instability can also undermine development policies and effective governance.

Fifth, the lack of education and human resource development, as well as cultural factors and social values that promote nepotism, patriarchy, or gender inequality, can hinder development in Muslim countries.

Lastly, geopolitics and international relations can also affect development in Muslim countries. Regional conflicts, economic sanctions, or political isolation can hinder trade, investment, and international cooperation, ultimately impacting economic growth and development.

Thus, various internal and external factors influence development in Muslim countries.

Recommendations and implications for Indonesia

In an effort to improve the condition of the Muslim world, Ahmet Kuru provides several recommendations. First, do not focus on the damage caused by the West but rather improve our own ideas, policies, and institutions. Second, address the issue of anti-intellectualism and state control over the economy. Third, adopt a new political perspective that does not solely rely on political theories from the Middle Ages. Fourth, do not uphold authoritarian and patriarchal political theories such as the alliance between religious scholars and the state. Fifth, create a competitive and meritocratic system in politics and economics. Lastly, encourage the emergence of creative intellectuals and independent bourgeois class to balance the power of religious scholars and state authority in promoting democratic and progressive changes. By doing these things, it is hoped that economic and social development in Muslim society will be enhanced while reducing violence, authoritarianism, and the gap compared to the West.

Ahmet Kuru’s recommendations have important implications for Indonesia as a country with the largest Muslim population. The implications include improvements in education, governance, and economy and addressing anti-intellectualism and state control over the economy. Additionally, Indonesia needs to adopt a new political perspective, rejecting authoritarian and patriarchal political theories, creating a competitive and meritocratic system, and promoting creative intellectuals and an independent bourgeois class.

By implementing these recommendations, Indonesia is expected to create better economic and social development conditions and reduce violence, authoritarianism, and backwardness compared to the West. This will also help improve Indonesia’s position and influence on the international stage, especially within the Muslim community and in the Southeast Asian region.

Philosophy of science about the backwardness of the Islamic community

In analyzing the lag of Muslims in the modern era, the theory of sociology of knowledge becomes a relevant foundation in the philosophy of science. This branch of sociology focuses on the study of the production, maintenance, and change of knowledge and beliefs within a societal context. This theory emphasizes the connection between social structure and the ideas generated by the community and how these ideas influence policies and actions taken.

Karl Mannheim, the philosopher most associated with this theory, who in the 1920s developed the concept of the “sociology of knowledge” to explain how knowledge and beliefs are produced in specific social and political situations. In relation to the theory of the sociology of knowledge and thought, Karl Mannheim is highly relevant because he explains how Muslim countries’ social, political, and economic contexts influence practices of authoritarianism, the model of Islamic capitalism, and internal and external factors that influence development.

Karl Mannheim’s theory of sociology of knowledge and thought is an approach in sociology that focuses on how human thinking and knowledge are influenced by social factors, such as social background, social class, and life experiences. Mannheim argues that human perspectives and thoughts are inseparable from the influence of their social environment and that certain social groups can influence individual thinking.

Mannheim proposes the concept of “collective ideology” to explain how an individual’s worldview is shaped and influenced by their social groups. According to Mannheim, collective ideology is a set of beliefs, values, interpretations, and ideas that are shared by members of a social group and used to understand and explain the world around them. Factors such as religion, social class, gender, and culture contribute to the formation of this collective ideology.

For example, we can see how collective ideology works in the context of social class. A factory worker and a corporate executive may have very different views on concepts such as justice, work ethics, and wealth distribution, largely influenced by their positions in the social structure. The factory worker, who may struggle to achieve a decent life, may have a more critical view of capitalism and be more accepting of workers’ rights and wealth redistribution. Meanwhile, the corporate executive, who may have gained significant profits from the current economic system, may have a more positive view of capitalism and be more skeptical of government intervention in the economy. This is an example of how collective ideology – in this case, shaped by social class – can shape individuals’ perspectives and understanding of the world.

Furthermore, collective ideologies play an important role in the context of religion. For example, Catholics and Muslims may have different understandings of concepts such as the role of God in everyday life, moral ethics, and worship practices. These collective ideologies shape individuals’ perspectives on spiritual life and can influence their views on social and political issues.

Thus, collective ideology can provide a robust framework of understanding for members of a social group, helping them comprehend the world and its place within it. This concept is crucial in sociology as it highlights how our social experiences shape our perspectives on the world.

In his theory, Mannheim also addresses the concept of “social consciousness,” which refers to an individual’s understanding of their role and position in society, shaped by various social factors. For example, one’s social background can make them aware of their economic position in society. For instance, a child raised in a less affluent family may have a deeper understanding of economic inequality compared to their peers from more privileged families.

Life experiences also influence social awareness. For example, a woman working in a male-dominated field may be aware of the challenges and gender issues she faces and may be motivated to promote gender equality in her workplace.

Lastly, collective ideology or shared beliefs and values within a social group also contribute to the formation of social consciousness. For instance, an environmental activist may have a deeper understanding of the importance of protecting the environment and the role of individuals in this endeavor, which may be influenced by the ideologies and values shared within the environmental community they belong to.

Thus, social awareness reflects how individuals understand their roles and positions in society, which are influenced by their social backgrounds, life experiences, and collective ideologies of the social groups they belong.

In his theory, Mannheim emphasizes that the sociology of knowledge and thought does not only focus on the analysis of individual thinking but also on the relationship between individuals and larger social groups. Mannheim also emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and reflection in understanding how social factors influence knowledge and thought and how thinking can change with social and political changes.

In short, Mannheim’s theory of the sociology of knowledge and thinking is an important approach to understanding how human thinking and knowledge are influenced by social factors and how thinking and knowledge can change with social and political changes.

The sociology of knowledge theory is suitable for explaining the lagging behind of the Muslim community. Karl Mannheim developed the concept of “sociology of knowledge” which studies how thought and knowledge are influenced by social factors, groups, and the environment. Mannheim emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and reflection in understanding how thought can change.

20 – We are the champions

We are often influenced by cognitive biases in our daily lives, which are tendencies to view something from a perspective that is not entirely objective. One example is bias in understanding and interpreting numbers. Although it is difficult to avoid these biases completely, we should strive to see numbers wisely and critically. It is important to remember that numbers can easily be manipulated and often become symbols of power, greatness, and fame. However, numbers do not always reflect the true value of individual achievements or qualities.

Victory in life can be seen in various ways. There are victories based on numbers, where we achieve the highest score or better results than others. These victories can be surprising and satisfying, but sometimes they do not reflect the deeper value of our achievements.

Victory based on integrity is a different way to assess success. In this case, we achieve our goals without oppressing or destroying others and without making excessive claims about our achievements. Integrity is important for long-term happiness and satisfaction.

In addition, victory based on values is when we provide benefit and value to others and appreciate them. As taught by Prophet Muhammad SAW, the best people are those who bring the most benefit to humanity. Therefore, we must strive to be winners in all three categories, not just in numbers alone.

We will become better individuals and contribute positively to society by applying these principles in our lives. As a result, we will experience more profound happiness and satisfaction that comes from living a meaningful life and positively impacting those around us.

The philosophy of science regarding the achievement

In explaining the integration of concepts such as cognitive bias, manipulation of numbers, and moral values in the principle of victory, the appropriate theory of philosophy of science involves the thinking of Thomas Kuhn and Immanuel Kant. Both philosophers assist in understanding these concepts and how they are interrelated in the context of science.

Thomas Kuhn, an American philosopher of science, is known for his theory on the structure of scientific change and paradigms. Although his focus is primarily on science, Kuhn’s concept of paradigms can be applied to understand how we view numbers and values. Paradigms can be seen as a framework of thought that leads to cognitive biases. Kuhn explains that people often see the world through the “glasses” of their paradigms, which influences how they understand and interpret information based on their beliefs and values.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is known for his concept of categorical imperative which reflects the idea of victory based on integrity and values. The categorical imperative is a moral principle that demands individuals to act according to rules that everyone should follow, regardless of personal outcomes or goals. In relation to academic achievement, the categorical imperative can explain how one can be a winner with integrity and values, prioritizing the common good over personal success or numbers.

Based on this information, Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science and Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy can be used to explain scholarly achievements.

Thomas Kuhn and Immanuel Kant are philosophers who can explain how we understand and interpret information, while Kant’s categorical imperative can help explain how someone can become a winner with integrity and values.

21 – Beauty and practicality of science

The world of scientific research is often divided into two main characteristics: “elegant science” and “workable science”. Both have different roles and contribute in their own way to advancing knowledge. However, the question that often arises is, which is more important or exciting between the two?

Elegant science usually appears in the form of theories or amazing discoveries that captivate researchers’ hearts but are often only experienced by certain people. It is not uncommon for elegant science to be difficult to combine with practical science. On the other hand, workable science is more relevant to the working world, especially in the field of mathematics, such as computer science and data science. Elegant mathematics is often found in mathematical research and can be seen in scientific journals, one example of which is a joke posted by Sergey Arkhipov on Facebook in 2012.

However, several renowned scientists, such as Richard Feynman, actually find beauty in elegant science. Feynman revealed that he could appreciate the beauty of flowers more deeply than an artist because he could see that beauty from various scientific aspects, ranging from molecular structure, metabolism, biophysics, and others. Marco J. Nathany and Diego Brancaccioz also discussed elegant scientific beauty in their article titled “The importance of being elegant: a discussion of elegance in Nephrology and biomedical science.”

Given the importance of these two characteristics of science, we should not only focus on one aspect. As researchers, we need to bridge the gap between elegant science and practical science, combining both to create knowledge that is beneficial to society as a whole. By doing so, we will be able to discover the beauty of elegant science and apply it in the form of practical science, creating harmony between the two.

By combining elegant and practical scientific approaches and utilizing the beauty of communication as a tool, we will be able to generate knowledge that is beneficial to the wider society and enhance a deeper appreciation for science. By conveying scientific information gracefully, we can discover the beauty of elegant science and apply it in practical forms. This will enrich the understanding and appreciation of science in society.

The philosophy of science regarding the beauty and practicality of science

In discussing the beauty of science, the theories of Imre Lakatos and the thoughts of Henri Poincaré, a related philosopher, become important. Both delve into beauty and aesthetics in science and highlight the differences between elegant and pragmatic science.

Imre Lakatos, a Hungarian philosopher of science and mathematics, introduced the concept of “research programs” in science. According to Lakatos, science develops through a series of competing research programs consisting of a hardcore and a protective belt. The hard core contains untested basic principles, while the protective belt consists of additional hypotheses that are tested and modified to accommodate new data. Lakatos argues that successful research programs are those that have theoretical and empirical growth, as well as beauty and simplicity in their structure.

Henri Poincaré, a French mathematician and philosopher, talks about aesthetics in mathematics and science. He suggests that the beauty of mathematics lies in simplicity, harmony, and balance within the structure of theories and arguments. According to Poincaré, beauty in science is often associated with the simplicity and elegance of theories and their ability to explain diverse phenomena with minimal fundamental principles.

Imre Lakatos and Henri Poincaré emphasize the importance of finding a balance between elegant science and practical science. Elegant science reflects the beauty of aesthetics in theory and thinking, while practical science focuses more on application and implementation in the real world. Both approaches are important in advancing science and technology.

The example given about Richard Feynman illustrates how a scientist can appreciate the elegance and beauty within science while still considering the practical aspects of their research. As explained in the text, beauty and elegance in science are often found in the structure of molecules, metabolism, biophysics, and other scientific aspects.

The philosophy of science theory by Imre Lakatos and the thoughts of Henri Poincaré on aesthetics in science is highly relevant in explaining the difference between elegant science and practical science, as well as the importance of acknowledging the value of both approaches. In the world of research and work, there is a need for elegant science, which reflects the beauty of aesthetics in theory and arguments, as well as practical science, which focuses more on application and implementation in the real world.

By appreciating these two aspects, scientists and practitioners can create an ideal balance between theoretical beauty and practical application, enabling discoveries, innovations, and advancements in various fields of science and technology. Furthermore, recognition of beauty and elegance in science can inspire and motivate scientists to continue pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding of the universe.

The theories of Imre Lakatos and the perspectives of Henri Poincaré are relevant in examining science, seeking a balance between the elegant beauty of science and the practical aspects of research.

22 – Distorted quality of journals

Two common problems arise in academic writing: choosing a good journal and relying too heavily on well-known journals for empirical research metascience. Some parties believe that there is no journal that is truly superior, and the assessment of journal quality is too influenced by social factors and impact factors, which are less relevant to various other quality indicators. This opinion has a strong foundation and is worth agreeing with.

Metascience is a field of research that evaluates and examines the practices, methods, and structure of science. Its goal is to enhance scientific research’s effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability by identifying weaknesses and biases in the research process and proposing improvements. Some key topics in metascience include the assessment of research findings, reproducibility, replication, publication bias, research methods, study design, measurement, and statistics. This field is crucial in ensuring the quality and transparency of research and generating accurate, reliable, and relevant scientific knowledge.

Using prestigious journals as a source of metascience data can lead to errors in the assessment of research quality. Therefore, examining various journals in a specific field and reading their articles directly to evaluate their quality is recommended. Metascience plays an important role in improving the quality, transparency, and confidence in research results.

In Indonesia, there is often a tendency for there to be no positive correlation between the quality of a paper and the journal assessment based on metascience, such as impact factors and citations. This underscores the importance of not solely relying on impact factors to assess the quality of a journal or paper. Other factors such as conceptualization quality, design, and research findings should also be considered.

To evaluate the quality of an article, the best way is to read the article directly and not just rely on the impact factor as a determinant of quality. In evaluating the quality of a journal or paper, it is important to consider various other factors, such as conceptualization, design, and research results, to obtain a more accurate and objective assessment.

The challenge of the quality of scientific publications in the digital era

In today’s world, we are constantly inundated with information. With the advancement of technology and the internet, access to information has become so easy that almost anyone can publish their thoughts. However, quantity does not always mean quality, which becomes a significant issue, especially in scientific publications.

In the academic field, more and more researchers feel compelled to publish as much as possible to enhance their reputation. As a result, many research findings are published without adequate quality checks. This floods the academic world with low-quality publications and creates challenges for those seeking valid and relevant knowledge.

Ironically, amidst this flood of information, we often feel a sense of loss of meaning. Many of these publications add to the volume of data without contributing significant understanding or new knowledge. This can make us feel like searching for a needle in a haystack, trying to find truly important and meaningful information amidst the chaos of information.

To address this issue, it is important for us to develop better mechanisms for assessing and filtering scientific publications. We need to ensure that quality and relevant research receives proper attention and that low-quality publications do not contribute to the chaos of information. Without these changes, we may continue to exist in a world filled with information but lacking meaning.

The philosophy of science regarding the quality of journals is distorted by indicators

To depict the distortion of journal quality caused by indicators, the falsificationism theory advocated by Karl Popper and the sociology of knowledge theory introduced by Thomas Kuhn became relevant in the philosophy of science.

Karl Popper’s falsificationism proposes that science develops through the process of attempting to prove theories wrong (falsification) rather than seeking evidence that supports those theories (verification). Popper would suggest that we should always look for weaknesses in scientific publications and assess the quality of research based on its ability to withstand criticism. This aligns with the advice in the text to read articles directly to judge their quality rather than relying solely on impact factors or journal status.

On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn explains how science develops through paradigms and scientific revolutions. Kuhn argues that the social structure and recognition of the scientific community influence the development of science. Kuhn’s theory supports the argument that the quality assessment of journals relies too much on social factors and impact factors that do not always reflect the actual research quality. Kuhn would emphasize that we should consider the social and historical context behind journals and scientific publications and accept that assessments based on metascience may not always be accurate.

Both Karl Popper’s falsificationism and Thomas Kuhn’s sociology of knowledge theory can help us understand why it is important to look at the quality of research beyond impact factors or journal status. The combination of these two theories emphasizes the importance of criticism, direct reading of articles, and considering the social and historical context in assessing the quality of scientific research.

We must assess papers by reading them directly, identifying weaknesses, and critiquing their findings. Additionally, we should consider other factors such as the quality of conceptualization, design, and the research findings themselves, while recognizing that assessments based on metascience may be influenced by social factors that do not always reflect the true quality of the research. For example, we need to avoid biases that arise from excessive recognition of prestigious journals and instead focus more on the substance of the research and the methodology used.

In practice, this means that researchers, readers, and evaluators must be more skeptical of claims made in scientific publications and thoroughly and objectively evaluate the work. This will help ensure that the assessment of quality is not only based on the reputation of the journal or metrics that may not accurately reflect the quality of the research but also on an in-depth analysis of the content, methodology, and actual contributions of the research.

By combining the critical and objective approach taught by Karl Popper’s falsificationism with an understanding of the role of social and historical factors in the development of science proposed by Thomas Kuhn, we can be more effective in assessing the quality of scientific research. This, in turn, will help improve the overall quality and transparency of research and strengthen trust in published research results.

So, to assess the quality of an article, the best approach is to combine the principles of Karl Popper’s falsificationism and Thomas Kuhn’s sociology of knowledge theory. In practice, this means reading the article directly, identifying weaknesses, criticizing its findings, and considering other factors such as conceptualization, design, and the research findings themselves. Additionally, we must acknowledge the role of social and historical factors in assessing research quality and not rely solely on metrics such as impact factors or journal status in evaluating the quality of a paper. By adopting this approach, we can improve the quality and transparency of scientific research and build greater trust in published research results.

Digging deeper into research and paying attention to the methodology, context, and relevance of findings will help us distinguish between genuinely high-quality research and research that only appears high-quality due to journal reputation or other metrics. By holistically evaluating the quality of research, we can be more effective in identifying and appreciating significant contributions to knowledge, regardless of the journal where the research is published.

In the long term, this approach will drive scientific progress more efficiently alongside researchers and academic communities who are more focused on research substance and methodological integrity rather than on metrics that may not reflect true quality. Additionally, this approach will support researchers from diverse backgrounds and institutions, including developing countries, to participate in scientific conversations and make valuable contributions that may have previously been overlooked.

Philosophers and theories about the quality of scientific journals involve Karl Popper’s falsificationism and Thomas Kuhn’s sociology of knowledge theory. Both emphasize the importance of criticism, direct reading of articles, and considering the social and historical context in assessing the quality of scientific research.

23 – Manipulation of the h-index

One reason why manipulation of the h-index occurs is because of the pressure from policies that prioritize quantity over quality of research. These policies encourage researchers and journals to focus more on outputs rather than the research process. However, high-quality outputs cannot be produced from a poor research process. In some cases, reward and promotion systems in research and academic institutions also emphasize metrics such as the h-index, which encourages manipulative behavior to achieve these targets.

The reputation of a journal is usually assessed based on how often the journal is cited, or what is known as “citation,” which is then reflected in the journal’s h-index. However, we must be cautious of certain situations where the h-index can provide a misleading picture due to manipulation.

An example that stands out is coercive citation, a practice involving journal editors forcing authors to include false citations in their articles before the journal is willing to publish them. This practice damages the integrity of journals and affects the quality of published scientific works. In addition, the h-index is also vulnerable to manipulation through self-citation, where authors intentionally refer to their own work excessively to increase their h-index.

The tendency to focus more on external factors, such as the h-index, has led some researchers and journals to overlook proper and ethical research processes. As a result, less valid, unreliable, or even irrelevant research can be published as long as it boosts the h-index. This has the potential to diminish public trust in scientific research and hinder the progress of science.

To address this problem, we need to cultivate a research culture that values quality over quantity. Research and academic institutions must change their reward and promotion systems to consider the quality of research, not just metrics like the h-index. Additionally, researchers should be aware of the importance of integrity in research and scholarly publications and avoid manipulative practices that only create a false impression of their achievements.

I highly appreciate the importance of enhancing the reputation of journals and understanding the various strategies that can be implemented. However, it should be remembered that integrity must always be upheld, and manipulative tactics to achieve such goals should be avoided.

As a dedicated researcher and editor committed to the ethics of science, I have high expectations for scientists to uphold the integrity of the research and scientific publication process. Therefore, I refuse to collaborate with journals that employ manipulative practices. I believe in the importance of upholding transparency, accountability, and honesty in research and publication for the advancement of science and the trust of the public in this process.

In maintaining the integrity of the research process and the scientific publication, we will create a healthy and ethical academic environment where knowledge can develop correctly and truly benefit us all. We must always prioritize transparency, accountability, and honesty in research and publication in order to achieve true scientific progress and build public trust in this process.

Philosophy of science regarding the manipulation of the h-index

In the context of manipulating the h-index, the relevance of the “ethics of science” theory emphasized by philosophers such as Michael Polanyi and Robert K Merton is highlighted. This ethics emphasizes the importance of integrity, objectivity, and transparency in conducting research and scientific publication.

Regarding the manipulation of the h-index, scientific ethics provide guidance on why we should oppose manipulative practices such as forced citations and self-citations used by some researchers to increase their h-index. Through the lens of scientific ethics, these manipulative actions can undermine the integrity of the research and scientific publication process and erode public trust in science.

Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argued that science should be based on the freedom of thought and the personal integrity of researchers. He emphasized that scientific integrity is a key element in the process of scientific discovery and serves as the foundation for the advancement of knowledge.

Robert K. Merton, a sociologist and philosopher of science, proposed the “Merton norms” which consist of a set of ethical principles in science such as universalism, scientific communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. These principles demonstrate the importance of scientific integrity and why we should avoid manipulative practices such as forced quotations and self-citation.

Philosophy plays an important role as a debunker of myths and a builder of a deeper and more critical understanding of reality. Philosophy encourages us to question and carefully examine what we often take as facts. In the context of the h-index in the academic world, philosophy can help us see beyond numbers and simple metrics, guiding us to understand the deeper meaning of achievement.

The h-index often used to measure a researcher’s productivity and citation impact, is often seen as an absolute measure of achievement. However, philosophy provides a way for us to look beyond these numbers and question what truly represents achievement in research. Illusory achievements, which may seem impressive but actually lack meaningful substance, can be considered a myth within this system. As logos or reason, philosophy helps us examine such thinking and shows that metrics like these may not always represent the true quality or impact of someone’s work.

Philosophy also provides us with a tool to identify and rectify misconceptions or misinterpretations. In this context, logos serve as our guide in finding and correcting errors and misunderstandings. If we only pursue metrics like the h-index without considering the broader meaning and impact of our work, we may be satisfied with the progress that seems to have been achieved, but in reality, we may not be making significant advancements in scientific discovery and innovation.

In essence, one of the main functions of philosophy is to help us see beyond appearances, question existing norms, and seek a deeper and more critical understanding. Philosophy encourages us to not only accept what seems obvious but to question, examine, and strive for a better understanding. In the context of the h-index and academic achievements, philosophy guides us to consider our work’s broader value and meaning rather than just focusing on quantifiable metrics.

Philosophy, with its moral principles, encourages us to seek knowledge with honesty and impartiality. Philosophy reminds us that, beyond statistics and measurements, essential values should be protected and maintained in scientific investigation and dissemination.

Philosophers Michael Polanyi and Robert K. Merton put forth the theory of “scientific ethics” which is applicable in explaining the issue of manipulating the h-index. This theory emphasizes integrity, objectivity, and transparency in research and scientific publication.

24 – Love of knowledge

I once read Carl Sagan’s statement, “Not explaining science feels strange to me. When you fall in love, you want to tell the world.” This statement conveys a deep appreciation for science and the importance of sharing discoveries and the wonders of science with others. The statement portrays an analogy between the passion for science and the feeling of love, emphasizing the desire to spread that enthusiasm. This is what we need to instill in the scientific community, especially among students, particularly for me personally as a lecturer. I enjoy teaching very much and want to see students progress in their knowledge acquisition. Being a part of their learning process and witnessing their growth is the most satisfying thing in my journey as an educator.

As a systematic approach to understanding the natural world, science has profoundly impacted human life. Science is responsible for many advancements and innovations that have shaped the modern world. For some, not sharing knowledge and scientific discoveries can be seen as unfair or even disrespectful to the pursuit of collective progress.

The comparison with falling in love shows that the passion for knowledge can be as intense and personal as romantic love. When people fall in love, they often feel compelled to share their happiness and experiences with others because it is a profound and transformative experience. Similarly, the excitement and satisfaction gained from scientific exploration can inspire a desire to share knowledge with the world.

By spreading scientific knowledge, we enhance the collective understanding of the universe and inspire curiosity and passion in others. This can lead to a chain effect, where more people engage with science, contribute to its progress, and continue to share discoveries.

Furthermore, explaining science to others can help eliminate misunderstandings and promote evidence-based decision-making. This is crucial in today’s world, where false information can spread quickly, and public understanding of scientific concepts can have significant consequences for policy and social well-being.

In short, the feelings expressed in the statement emphasized the importance of sharing scientific knowledge and fostering a love for science in society. Just as people want to share love with others, passionate supporters of science should feel compelled to explain and promote scientific understanding for the benefit of humanity and progress.

The philosophy of science regarding the love of knowledge

Sharing scientific knowledge and nurturing a love for science in society is something that needs to be done. According to Carl Sagan, an astrophysicist, cosmologist, and renowned writer, scientific education for the public is of utmost importance. In his works such as “Cosmos” and “The Demon-Haunted World”, Sagan strives to explain complex scientific concepts in easily understood and engaging ways for untrained audiences. Sagan also strongly advocates for sharing scientific knowledge and fostering a love for science.

Thomas Kuhn, a renowned philosopher of science, introduced the concept of “paradigm” in his work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Kuhn argues that science develops through a succession of periods called “normal science” and “scientific revolutions”. According to Kuhn’s perspective, scientific progress occurs when knowledge is shared and debated, as science is a collaborative and communal process. Although Kuhn’s primary focus is on the structure and development of science, his views on collaboration and communication within the scientific community can provide context for the importance of sharing scientific knowledge.

Michael Polanyi, a philosopher and scientist, developed the concept of “tacit knowledge” or unspoken knowledge. Polanyi stated that much scientific knowledge cannot be explained explicitly or formally but must be acquired through experience and practice. Polanyi emphasized the importance of sharing knowledge through social interaction and collaboration, as tacit knowledge is often only understood through the process of learning together. Although his focus is different, Polanyi’s view on the importance of sharing knowledge can provide philosophical support for the love of science.

Sharing scientific knowledge and encouraging society to love science comprehensively is important. The ideas and theories of the mentioned philosophers can help explain and support this view and highlight how science can be expanded and disseminated through communication, collaboration, and social interaction between scientists and the general public.

Carl Sagan, a renowned astrophysicist and writer, advocated for scientific outreach. Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi emphasized the importance of collaboration and social interaction in the development of science.

25 – Faith and science culture

The statement “Religion is a culture of faith and science is a culture of doubt” describes two different approaches to seeking truth and meaning in this world. Religion typically focuses on belief and faith in truths believed to originate from a divine source, such as scripture or specific religious teachings. In religion, faith is often seen as a crucial factor in seeking an understanding of the world and life’s purpose.

Meanwhile, science relies on the scientific method and skepticism toward all claims that have not been empirically proven through observation, experimentation, and research. Science strives to produce objective and verifiable knowledge to understand the world and find solutions to complex problems.

Religion and science have different approaches to understanding the world, and both can provide different understandings of the meaning and purpose of life. However, I do not believe that they should be seen as mutually exclusive or contradictory.

We must respect and honor someone’s religious beliefs and let knowledge answer questions that can be answered through scientific methods. On the other hand, science also cannot answer questions about the meaning and purpose of life, which sometimes can only be answered through faith and spiritual experience.

Therefore, the belief is that both religion and science can contribute valuable insights into understanding the world and seeking the meaning of life and that they can coexist harmoniously.

Islam does not reject science

People who reject science in favor of religious beliefs often actively search for information that aligns with their views. As an illustration, Baghdad stood as the epicenter of intellectual thought worldwide a millennium ago. There are arguments suggesting that scientific advancement experienced a halt during that period due to the supposed apprehension expressed by the Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali regarding the adverse effects of philosophy and knowledge on the spiritual existence of Muslims in his writings. This perspective, as presented by Neil deGrasse Tyson in a lecture I viewed on YouTube, is regarded as significant in shaping society’s understanding of science and its progress during that particular era.

However, no substantial evidence suggests that Al-Ghazali outright rejects science or considers it contradictory to Islamic teachings. On the contrary, Al-Ghazali actually values knowledge, including mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, and regards it as part of religious knowledge. In “Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din”, he explains the importance of pursuing knowledge in the life of a Muslim and presents various disciplines that should be studied.

The misunderstanding of Al-Ghazali’s views on science may stem from his criticism of the Neoplatonic philosophy that greatly influenced Muslim thinkers at the time. In “Tahafut al-Falasifa,” Al-Ghazali attacks some arguments and views held by philosophers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi. However, this criticism is mainly directed toward their philosophy’s metaphysical and theological aspects rather than scientific knowledge or science itself.

The misconception that Al-Ghazali rejected science out of fear that Muslims would drift away from their religion is not supported by evidence from Al-Ghazali’s own works. The impact of Al-Ghazali’s views on knowledge and scientific progress needs to be understood in a broader context, acknowledging the values emphasized by Al-Ghazali, such as the importance of knowledge in the life of a Muslim.

Science and religion in determining the beginning and end of Ramadan

The initial determination and ending of Ramadan in Indonesia is a good example of representing the relationship between science and religion, which should respect each other rather than dominate each other. The differences in these determination methods, such as visual observation (rukyatul hilal) or astronomical calculation (hisab), can result in variations in the timing of Idul Fitri celebrations in different regions.

This often leads to controversy because it involves the interpretation of religious texts and understanding astronomical phenomena. Astronomy can provide accurate data on when the new moon will be visible, but religion has its own traditions and interpretations regarding its determination.

At this point, it is important to remember that science should not impose its views on religion. Although it presents data and facts, the interpretation and application in the context of religion are different territories and should be respected. In this regard, scientific discoveries should not be imposed, especially in matters related to religious beliefs.

On the contrary, religious authorities also need to understand that science plays a role in providing an understanding of the physical world, including astronomical phenomena related to the determination of Ramadan. This knowledge should be accepted and utilized in accordance with their traditions and beliefs.

The relationship between science and religion in the context of determining the beginning and end of Ramadan in Indonesia shows the importance of mutual respect and recognition of each other’s roles and limitations. They are not enemies but two different ways of understanding the world, and they can complement each other in the search for truth.

The balance between religion and science

In the context of the present time, debates regarding the relationship between religion and science are becoming more frequent. Along with the advancement of knowledge, some people feel that religion, especially Islam, is threatened by the dominance of science. This phenomenon is also observed in other religions, such as the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Christianity in America, which face challenges in relation to their beliefs with the progress of science.

History records several Islamic figures, such as Muhammad Abduh and Mustafa al-Maraghi, who sought to find a rational basis in religion to address the challenges posed by science. One example is when a French surgeon, Maurice Bucaille, provided a scientific interpretation of Quranic verses regarding human embryos. However, such an approach can have dangerous consequences when the truth of religion depends on scientific confirmation.

It is important for religious believers to seek a rational basis for their beliefs while also avoiding excessive reliance on scientific confirmation. The Islamization of science may currently be less accepted because it tends to place religion beneath science, ultimately reducing the authority of religion in the lives of its followers. As a solution, it is necessary to find a balance between religion and science in order to create harmony in everyday thinking and practice.

Many people agree that religion and science can coexist if they each respect their own domains. The key to this reconciliation is open dialogue, mutual respect, and good communication between the religious community and scientists. With this approach, debates regarding religion and science can become more productive and respectful of both perspectives.

Philosophy of science regarding the culture of faith and science

Although religion and science have different approaches to understanding the world, they can coexist harmoniously. There are several theories and philosophical thoughts in science that can support this view. One theory mentioned is “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) by Stephen Jay Gould, which suggests that religion and science have different authorities and can complement each other in understanding the world and seeking the meaning of life.

Albert Einstein also acknowledged the relationship between religion and science, where both complement each other in the search for truth. Einstein viewed religion as a source of moral values and science as a source of explanation for natural phenomena. However, he also emphasized the importance of maintaining boundaries between the two and not mixing their methods and claims.

In addition, Ian Barbour, a physicist and theologian, developed a fourfold taxonomy that explains the relationship between science and religion through four perspectives: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. In the Dialogue perspective, Barbour emphasizes that religion and science can interact, mutually contributing to understanding the world, coexisting harmoniously, and complementing each other in the search for truth and meaning in life. Conflict portrays science and religion as two opposing poles. Independence regards science and religion as having separate and independent domains without the need for dialogue. Meanwhile, Integration states that religion and science can merge and combine to solve life’s problems.

The taxonomy of four folds is a classification method of knowledge divided into four main categories based on their accessibility and specificity. These categories include easily accessible general knowledge, difficult to access general knowledge, easily accessible specialized knowledge, and difficult to access specialized knowledge.

The first category encompasses basic information or common facts that are easily found and understood. The second category includes complex information or scientific theories that require in-depth research but are relevant to many people. The third category includes specific information about a particular topic or field that is easily understood by those interested or with a background in the topic. The fourth category includes expert information or knowledge that requires special experience or education to understand and access.

The boundaries between these categories are not clear, so some knowledge may fall between two or more categories, indicating overlap. This taxonomy helps understand the relationships between different types of knowledge and facilitates information organization. By classifying knowledge into these categories, we can more easily search for, understand, and apply information according to our needs or interests.

In diagram representation, dashed lines depict boundaries between existing categories, indicating that the boundaries between these categories are unclear and can overlap. Some knowledge may exist between two or more categories.

Other philosophers that can be associated with the culture of faith and science include Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Each of them has a unique view of the relationship between religion and science.

Thomas Aquinas, for example, developed the view that religion and science have a close connection, where science can help uncover the secrets of the universe created by God. Conversely, Kant sees religion and science as two different and independent forms of knowledge that cannot dominate each other. On the other hand, Descartes sees religion as a higher source of knowledge than science, and Nietzsche rejects the claims of absolute truth from religion and science.

Although religion and science have different approaches to understanding the world, they can coexist harmoniously and complement each other in the search for truth and the meaning of life. This view can be explained with the help of theories of the philosophy of science and the thoughts of the philosophers mentioned earlier.

Religion and science can coexist harmoniously. One theory that supports this view is Stephen Jay Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA). Ian Barbour developed a dialogue model that emphasizes the valuable contributions of religion and science in understanding the world. Albert Einstein, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, and Friedrich Nietzsche also have unique perspectives on the relationship between religion and science.

26 – Religion and philosophy

The exciting difference between philosophy and religion is their respective perspectives on knowledge. Philosophy is considered as “unanswered questions that may never be answered,” while religion is regarded as “unquestioned answers.” Although I myself do not have a deep knowledge of philosophy, I agree that religion and philosophy should not be mixed because of the limitations of human thinking in reaching absolute truth.

The difference between philosophy and religion actually lies in how they investigate the same field, as stated by philosophy experts. Philosophy is seen as a form of thinking, while religion is more related to devotion and the heart. In philosophy, knowledge is seen as the key to understanding, whereas knowledge is used for worship and service in religion. Furthermore, the essence of religion is knowledge about God and the relationship between humans and God.

In a metaphor, pleasure is defined as someone’s feeling of love, while contemplation is the thoughts of the lover about that feeling of love. Additionally, religion can be understood as pleasure, devotion, or satisfaction.

Another difference is that religion starts from belief and then seeks arguments to strengthen that belief, while philosophy starts from searching for strong arguments and evidence, and then belief is created. Religion is often compared to a roaring waterfall from a dam, while philosophy is compared to a clear, calm lake that reveals its foundation.

Religious follower, who has formed a strong bond with their spiritual beliefs, tends to defend their religion fiercely. This is due to the commitment they have built towards their chosen faith. Most religious individuals consider their beliefs as an absolute truth that cannot be shaken; therefore they will go to great lengths to protect their religion from criticism, doubt, or different interpretations.

On the contrary, a philosopher has a more flexible approach to considering various thoughts and arguments. They are open-minded because they are not emotionally or spiritually bound to a particular belief. Philosophers are always open to the possibility that their thoughts or views may be incorrect, and they are ready to change or abandon their stance when presented with stronger evidence or arguments.

When a philosopher encounters new information or insights that indicate their opinions are incorrect, they will further investigate, reevaluate their assumptions, and delve deeper to seek a better truth. This attitude reflects their desire to continue learning, growing, and achieving a deeper understanding of the world and existing reality. In this process, philosophers appreciate open, critical, and rational dialogue as a means to explore various perspectives and seek a more comprehensive understanding.

Historically, some figures are known as philosophers and religious scholars, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Maimonides. They attempted to combine philosophical thought with their religious beliefs and produced important works that influenced theological and philosophical thinking for centuries. These figures show that philosophy and religion can complement each other in the search for truth and understanding about the world and human life.

Philosophy of science regarding the distinction between religion and philosophy

The related theory of philosophy of science is “Positivism” advocated by Auguste Comte. According to the positivist view, valid information can only be obtained through sensory observation and scientific approaches. This idea emphasizes knowledge based on facts and visible evidence and highlights the role of logic, rationality, and objectivity.

The relevance of positivism lies in its discussion of the differences between philosophy and religion and how both pursue knowledge and understanding through different methods. Philosophy, as depicted by positivism, seeks knowledge through rational thinking, logic, and empirical evidence, while religion pursues knowledge through faith and devotion.

Some differences between philosophy and religion include how religion demands knowledge for devotion, while philosophy demands knowledge for understanding. Positivism is suitable for explaining this difference as it emphasizes the importance of knowledge based on empirical evidence and logic and appreciates rationality in the pursuit of knowledge.

In addition, positivism reflects the difference between religion and philosophy in terms of how beliefs are maintained and altered. Positivism teaches that views and theories should always be open to change and correction based on new evidence, reflecting the attitude of flexibility mentioned in relation to philosophy. On the other hand, religion often emphasizes obedience and steadfastness of belief, reflecting how religious adherents may hold onto their beliefs tenaciously.

Auguste Comte’s positivism teaches that authentic information is obtained through sensory experience and scientific methods. Knowledge should be based on observed facts and evidence, as well as logic, rationality, and objectivity. Religion emphasizes belief, while philosophy seeks to understand.

27 – Science, religion, and perspective

I found a lecture on YouTube delivered by Neil deGrasse Tyson that reveals only 7% of elite scientists in the United States believe in the existence of God. This information was obtained from two publications in the journal Nature titled “Scientists are still keeping the faith” and “Leading scientists still reject God”. In my opinion, we need to pay attention to the reasons why only a small number of elite scientists believe in the existence of God. Perhaps this is due to a narrow perspective in comprehensively understanding life.

Referring to scientific and philosophical theories, humans have limitations in their thinking and perception. Like a submarine analogy, humans can only see as far as their senses allow; thus their vision is limited. On the other hand, God’s perspective surpasses the bounds of human perception, similar to a periscope that provides a broader view than the submarine window. In this case, God is not limited by human perception constraints.

To overcome these limitations, humans must strive to broaden their perspectives by increasing knowledge, seeking life’s purpose, approaching the qualities of God, and refining the heart to see more clearly and expansively. Although we will never be able to fully attain the qualities of God, making an effort to approach them can help us gain a deeper understanding of the universe and our existence within it.

Most likely, some elite scientists who do not believe in the existence of God may lack empathy and broaden their perspectives. This certainly does not diminish their greatness as scientists, but to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of life and the universe, there needs to be a balance between knowledge and spirituality.

As individuals and members of society, we must strive not to lose a holistic perspective in looking at life and not allow ourselves to be trapped in narrow views. In the pursuit of knowledge, we need to maintain a balance between intellectual and emotional intelligence and between scholarship and wisdom derived from beliefs and spiritual values. In this way, we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of life and create a better world for all living beings.

The philosophy of science regarding the perspective on science and religion

To delve deeper into explaining the views of elite scientists on the relationship between science and religion, the theory of non-reductionist views of science and religion can provide an accurate explanation. This theory, advocated by leading philosophers such as Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne, seeks to strengthen the relationship between science and religion by acknowledging that both fields have different methods and goals in their efforts to seek truth and understand the world.

This non-reductionist concept is based on the premise that science and religion are not two conflicting fields but can interact and complement each other. In this context, science is seen as a discipline centered on observing the physical world and explaining the cause-and-effect laws that govern the universe. Meanwhile, religion is more focused on the search for meaning and purpose in life and exploring the relationship between humans and the Divine.

This non-reductionist theory holds significant relevance, especially in explaining why many elite scientists reject the concept of God and how this may reflect their narrow view of life. The theory emphasizes the importance of acknowledging that humans have limitations in their understanding and perspective and how religion can expand individuals’ views on life and the search for meaning.

John Polkinghorne is one of the most prominent examples of philosophers who support this non-reductionist view. As a theoretical physicist who later became an Anglican priest, Polkinghorne has sought to embrace both fields and show that they have different approaches but complement each other in the search for truth. According to him, science and religion can coexist and complement each other in the pursuit of truth and understanding of reality.

In other words, expanding human perspective through increasing knowledge, searching for life’s purpose, gaining a deeper understanding of God’s nature, and sharpening emotional abilities to see the world more clearly, becomes important. The non-reductionist view in the philosophy of science and religion reflects this approach by appreciating the role of science and religion in shaping a more comprehensive and profound understanding of the world and our position as humans within it.

Ian Barbour and John Polkinghorne put forward the theory of “Non-Reductionist Views of Science and Religion, ” asserting that science and religion can complement each other. Human limitations in understanding and perspective demand an increase in knowledge and approaching the nature of God.

28 – Better to stay silent

Sometimes, I feel tempted to express my opinion when I hear news, comments, or views that I find inappropriate or unwise, such as regarding the political situation in Afghanistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. However, I always carefully consider before making any comments, especially on social media, when facing sensitive issues that could potentially hurt other people’s feelings.

For example, when observing the situation in Afghanistan, I am reluctant to comment because I am not a citizen of Afghanistan and do not fully understand the actual situation there. Therefore, judging who is right or wrong, or taking sides with those considered good or evil in that perspective, may not be a wise step.

Two wise quotes that I often remember in this situation teach the importance of wisdom in speaking. First, “Silence is the best response to a fool” teaches us that sometimes not giving a response is the best way to handle situations that require wisdom. Second, “Meaningful silence is better than meaningless words” reminds us to choose our words carefully and convey meaningful messages rather than speaking without careful consideration.

In situations like this, it is important to maintain wisdom and empathy when expressing opinions, especially when the issues being discussed are sensitive and involve the feelings of others. Sometimes, staying silent and not commenting is the best way to respect differing views and avoid unnecessary conflicts. Those who prefer silence over speaking have many advantages in diverse situations. Their nonverbal communication skills are usually stronger, allowing them to convey messages or emotions without having to express them in words. Silence often becomes their way of avoiding conflicts and maintaining harmonious relationships with others.

Individuals who prefer to remain silent tend to be more observant and learn from their surroundings. This helps them understand the social and emotional context of interactions better. Their emotional sensitivity makes them more responsive to the feelings of others, allowing them to respond in a more empathetic and supportive manner.

Furthermore, those who prefer to remain silent usually respect their turn to speak in a conversation and prioritize quality over quantity of information conveyed. This makes the conversation more efficient and easier for others to follow and understand what is being conveyed.

Philosophy of science about personal communication

Humility epistemology, a theory of philosophy of science presented by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes the importance of humility and acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge in understanding the world. This concept is highly relevant in personal communication and helps us maintain harmonious and effective relationships with others.

Humility in the context of communication entails the wisdom to refrain from commenting on sensitive political situations or those beyond our understanding, such as Afghanistan. Exercising restraint from providing comments or opinions in such situations demonstrates respect and awareness of our knowledge limitations. It also helps avoid conflicts and maintain good relationships with individuals who have different backgrounds and perspectives.

In addition, the importance of silence as a response in certain situations is often seen as a form of wisdom. In some cases, not responding or commenting can avoid conflicts or misunderstandings arising from emotionally charged conversations or inaccurate information. In this context, silence can effectively maintain healthy interpersonal relationships, reduce tension, and promote better understanding between the parties involved.

By considering the importance of silence and humility in communication, we can show sensitivity towards the situations faced and the needs of others. This enables us to be more aware of the feelings and perspectives of others, as well as to respect diversity of thought and culture.

Applying the principle of epistemological humbleness in our communication will help us appreciate our own limits of knowledge and understand the importance of humility and silence. In sensitive political situations or beyond our understanding, maintaining a humble attitude and respecting our limits of knowledge can help us build more harmonious, effective, and respectful relationships with others.

The theory of scientific philosophy “epistemological humbleness” proposed by philosopher Immanuel Kant emphasizes the importance of humility and recognizing the limitations of our knowledge about the world.

29 – Do not argue with foolish people

I often witness debates around me, but I always choose not to get involved, especially if the speaker lacks knowledge. Stupidity can be defined as a deficiency in understanding, logic, or intelligence. Ironically, foolish people are often very active in debates, and there are two main reasons why I decide to avoid debating with them.

First, there is an expression from Imam Syafi’i, a prominent Islamic scholar, who states that he always feels successful in debating with intelligent people but feels powerless when debating with foolish people. This shows that the inability to understand each other in a discussion often results in unproductive conversations that only waste energy. Debating with someone who lacks knowledge can expose us to endless and futile arguments that do not lead us to satisfying conclusions.

Secondly, the story depicts a race between a dog and a cheetah. In this story, the cheetah chooses not to move at all, affirming that the effort to prove one’s superiority is something demeaning. The moral message of this story is that, like the cheetah, we don’t always need to prove our greatness in arguments. Avoiding unproductive debates with foolish people is a way to maintain our dignity and focus on more important things in life.

Therefore, avoiding arguments with foolish people not only saves time and energy but also serves as a way to maintain our dignity. On the contrary, discussing with intelligent and knowledgeable individuals can bring enlightenment and deeper thoughts. Interacting with those with a broader vision, better analytical skills, and a more open attitude can help us improve our understanding and develop richer perspectives.

Philosophy of debate

Although not directly related to the philosophy of science, wisdom in the debates that may occur in the scientific world can be very important. Philosophers like Socrates and Lao Tzu discuss wisdom, ethics, and knowledge that are important in the interaction between scientists.

Socrates taught that wisdom is being aware of what we know and what we do not know. In situations, avoiding arguments with foolish people can be seen as a way to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and capabilities and respect others’ freedom to have different opinions.

Socrates also believes that right and good actions are rooted in knowledge and wisdom, not in winning arguments or proving one’s greatness. In this regard, avoiding arguments with foolish people can be seen as a way to practice Socratic wisdom, where the focus is not on winning debates but on achieving a deeper understanding of truth and goodness.

However, it should be noted that wisdom in interacting with others is not limited to the thoughts of Socrates or Western philosophy. For example, in Eastern traditions such as Taoism, philosophers like Lao Tzu also teach the importance of wisdom and humility in interacting with others. In many cases, avoiding unproductive conflicts and debates is part of the practice of wisdom in various wisdom traditions.

Avoiding debates with foolish people and not feeling the need to prove one’s own greatness can be linked to the principles of wisdom taught by philosophers like Socrates and Lao Tzu. Their thinking focuses on pursuing truth and goodness rather than winning arguments or dominating others.

Wisdom, ethics, and knowledge discussed by philosophers like Socrates and Lao Tzu can be important in the interactions among scientists during debates in the scientific world, although they are not directly related to the philosophy of science.

30 – Communication in science and technology

In this increasingly advanced internet era, scientific and technological communication can be done quickly and effectively through scientific publications in journals and books. However, the rapid progress of science and technology is still hindered by various factors, including business greed and economic motivation that limit access to the latest scientific publications.

According to data released by the PLOS One website, the cost of access to scientific journals has increased by over 250 percent since 1986. In addition, only a small portion of published research results can be freely accessed by the general public.

Of course, this poses a significant problem for science and technology, as limited access to scientific publications can restrict the exchange of information and new ideas, which are crucial in advancing research and technological development.

To address this issue, the country can play an active role in helping to improve access to scientific publications. One way to do this is by introducing laws that ensure government-funded research is freely available to the general public.

In addition, countries can assist in developing infrastructure for scientific publication, such as digital repositories that researchers can use to store and share their research findings. This will enable researchers to publish their research findings openly without paying expensive fees or being limited by publisher profits.

In this increasingly connected world, it is important for us to continue promoting the development of science and technology by ensuring open access to scientific publications. By doing so, we can ensure that science and technology can rapidly progress in our country and provide benefits to the wider community.

Philosophy of science regarding communication in science and technology

To depict communication in science, appropriate theories of the philosophy of science come from the thoughts of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Both emphasize the importance of scientific development and communication in enhancing insights. On the other hand, Jürgen Habermas is a related philosopher who discusses communication and public space in the context of society.

In his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Thomas Kuhn presents the idea of paradigm shifts in science. He argues that scientific progress occurs through a series of revolutions in which scientists replace one paradigm with another. Open access to scientific publications is an important aspect of facilitating these paradigm shifts, as it allows for the dissemination of new information and ideas.

Karl Popper, a renowned philosopher of science, emphasized the importance of falsification in the development of scientific theories. Popper argued that scientists should strive to prove their theories wrong rather than seeking support for their truth. Effective communication and open access to scientific publications are crucial in enabling scientists to test and evaluate existing theories. By ensuring that research findings and experiments are widely available, researchers can test and improve their theories, thus advancing the field of science.

Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher, developed the concept of the ‘public sphere’ in his work “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.” Habermas argues that a healthy and democratic public sphere is crucial in enabling open and critical discussions on various topics, including science and technology. From the perspective of science communication, open access to scientific publications allows for the dissemination of information and new ideas and facilitates broader debates on research findings and their implications for society.

By applying the thoughts of Kuhn, Popper, and Habermas in the context of open access to scientific publications, we can see how important effective and open communication is in advancing science and technology. The state must actively support open access to scientific publications so that science and technology can continue to develop and benefit the wider society.

One way to achieve this is through the introduction of laws that ensure government-funded research results are freely available to the general public. Thus, anyone interested can access research findings, allowing for wider dissemination of information and new ideas. This will create a more inclusive and democratic environment where scientists and the general public can participate in research and technological development debates.

In addition, countries can help develop infrastructure for scientific publishing, such as digital repositories that researchers can use to store and share their research findings. This will enable researchers to publish their research findings openly without paying expensive fees or being limited by publisher profits.

In this increasingly connected world, it is important for us to continue to promote the development of science and technology by ensuring open access to scientific publications. In doing so, we can ensure that science and technology can rapidly advance in our country and benefit the wider community. Through collaboration and effective communication, we can create an environment that is conducive to innovation and scientific progress.

The application of theories and thoughts from Kuhn, Popper, and Habermas not only helps overcome the problem of open access to scientific publications but also encourages a more inclusive dialogue between scientists, governments, and the general public. By involving various stakeholders in the research and development process, we can generate more holistic and sustainable solutions to our global challenges.

The philosophy of science theories by Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper, as well as Jürgen Habermas’s thoughts on communication and public space, are highly relevant in explaining the importance of open access to scientific publications and the role of the state in supporting scientific and technological advancements. By applying these principles in policy and practice, we can ensure that science and technology continue evolving and significantly benefit society.

Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, and Jürgen Habermas explain the importance of open access to scientific publications. The state should support open access to advanced science and technology and create an inclusive environment for innovation.

31 – Dialogue, debate, and discussion

In everyday life, we often observe communication between people with different goals. In this writing, I want to explain three types of communication that frequently occur, namely dialogue, debate, and discussion. It is important for us to understand the appropriate perspective in conducting these three types to achieve the goal of communication.

What is dialogue?

Not all dialogues have the same purpose. Dialogues can have many different goals, such as resolving conflicts, building relationships, or obtaining information.

The accurate definition of dialogue is a communication process that involves the exchange of information, viewpoints, and beliefs between two or more parties. In dialogue, each party listens and considers different perspectives and viewpoints and strives to understand the perspectives and beliefs of others. The goal of dialogue is to achieve understanding and agreement and to build better relationships between participating parties.

One important dialogue in a country composed of various religions is interfaith dialogue. The purpose of interfaith dialogue is to promote understanding and tolerance among different religions. Through dialogue, people from different religions can learn to understand each other’s beliefs and practices, appreciate those differences, and find commonalities and similarities among them.

However, confrontational and tendentious communication, which tends to prove who is right or wrong, is not always effective in achieving the goals of interfaith dialogue. This type of communication can be counterproductive and increase tension and misunderstanding between different parties. In addition, this type of communication tends to focus on the effort to prove the truth of each belief rather than the effort to understand different beliefs and perspectives. Therefore, in interfaith dialogue, it is important to focus on open-mindedness and a desire to understand each other rather than trying to prove who is right or wrong.

Dialogue and debate

So, what is the difference between a dialogue and a debate? Dialogue and debate are two different communication processes in terms of purpose, orientation, and style.

Dialogue is a communication process involving the exchange of views, information, and beliefs between two or more people to achieve understanding and agreement and build better relationships. In dialogue, each party listens and considers different perspectives and viewpoints and strives to understand the perspectives and beliefs of others.

Meanwhile, a debate is a communication process involving efforts to prove one viewpoint’s truth or superiority over another. Debaters tend to advocate for their own viewpoints or positions and strive to convince their opponents that their own viewpoint is more true or better.

In a dialogue, the main objective is to achieve understanding and consensus among the participating parties, while in a debate the aim is to prove the truth or superiority of the views or positions held by each party.

In general, dialogue is more open and cooperative, while debate tends to be more closed and competitive. In addition to dialogue and debate, one more important form of communication is discussion.

Discussion

The discussion aims to openly and structurally discuss topics to achieve understanding, identify possible solutions, or reach a common conclusion. Discussion allows for more equal contributions from all parties involved and seeks the best solutions for the problems at hand.

Although the goals are the same, the approach and perspective in dialogue, debate, and discussion differ. Dialogue aims to build relationships and trust, debate aims to determine the strongest or correct argument, and discussion aims to find the best solution with equal contributions from all parties involved.

The philosophy of science on dialogue, debate, and discussion

Three types of communication: dialogue, debate, and discussion, have their own differences and purposes. Some theories of the philosophy of science and philosophers can help explain this topic.

Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher and sociologist, is one of the leading thinkers of the 20th century and is known for his theory of communicative action. This theory emphasizes the importance of dialogue and discussion in creating understanding and shared agreements within society. Habermas argues that effective and productive social interaction should occur in conditions allowing participants to speak freely and honestly, respect each other’s perspectives, and strive to reach agreement through rationality and reasoning. For him, communication is the essence of a democratic society, where shared understanding is built, and conflicts are resolved through dialogue and negotiation.

The concept of communicative action by Habermas is relevant in various contexts, especially in problem-solving and decision-making. In an increasingly complex and interconnected society, it is important to ensure that dialogue and discussion play a crucial role in achieving shared understanding and seeking solutions to various challenges. According to Habermas, this can only be achieved if every individual is given an equal opportunity to speak, be heard, and have their perspectives valued. Therefore, the underlying principles of Habermas’ theory of communicative action can help shape an environment that supports constructive social interactions, promotes shared understanding, and enables effective and fair problem-solving.

Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher who significantly influenced the existentialist movement, offers a unique and profound perspective on the pursuit of truth. Kierkegaard doubts the effectiveness of formal debates as a means to discover truth. In his view, truth cannot be found solely through logical arguments or debates determined by formal laws of logic. For him, the search for truth is a process that involves deep thinking, introspection, and personal experience. He argues that truth must be confronted individually and cannot be conveyed or accepted through debates or rational discussions alone.

Kierkegaard’s perspective challenges us to consider the limitations of debate in achieving deep understanding and promotes the importance of more open and inclusive dialogue and discussion. He says debates often emphasize winning arguments rather than seeking shared understanding. On the other hand, dialogue and discussion, which prioritize the exchange of views and experiences in an honest and respectful manner, can provide broader and deeper insights. Thus, in this context, Kierkegaard guides us to go beyond debate and seek new ways to share and explore truth through more open and inclusive dialogue and discussion.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, a German philosopher known for his contributions to the field of philosophical hermeneutics, sees dialogue and discussion as key elements in the process of understanding and interpretation. For him, texts and works of art cannot be deeply understood without dialogue – an interactive process allowing us to go beyond our own perspectives and experiences. He argues that dialogue is a tool that enables us to understand the perspectives and experiences of others and thus achieve a deeper and more inclusive understanding of the subject we are studying.

Gadamer emphasizes that understanding is not a static or finished process but rather a continuous and dynamic process. In dialogue, we are open to the views and perspectives of others, and this in turn influences and expands our own understanding. Gadamer sees dialogue as a bridge between individuals, enabling us to achieve mutual understanding and agreement. Therefore, Gadamer’s perspective emphasizes the importance of dialogue and discussion in achieving deeper and more inclusive understanding and facilitating diverse and rich perspectives in our interpretation of the world. With this understanding, we can reach a consensus more effectively and navigate our society’s inevitable differences and complexities.

This philosopher emphasizes the importance of dialogue, debate, and discussion in achieving understanding, solutions, and consensus. They teach that every type of communication has strengths and limitations, and choosing the most relevant approach is important based on the goals and situations.

Three famous philosophers, Jürgen Habermas, Søren Kierkegaard, and Hans-Georg Gadamer, highlight the importance of dialogue, debate, and discussion in communication. Habermas emphasizes the significance of dialogue and discussion in creating understanding, Kierkegaard rejects the debate approach, and Gadamer emphasizes the importance of dialogue and discussion in interpreting texts.

32 – Philosophy without confusion

I frequently observe an individual who is considered a philosopher confounding listeners with complex and difficult-to-understand language. Though the subjects discussed might be simple, this philosopher often conveys ideas indirectly and unstructured, ensnared by his or her own rhetorical flourish. Ironically, this philosopher is prone to labeling others as “dungu” (foolish in Indonesian), despite the fact that listeners often find themselves perplexed by the wordplay and rhetorical devices employed.

When someone communicates their ideas indirectly and in an unstructured manner, they tend to use language that is unclear and delivery that is not systematic. This often creates difficulty in understanding the true intentions behind the ideas being conveyed, especially when it involves the use of metaphors, analogies, or figurative language.

In exploring the thoughts of philosophers or those considered philosophers, we need to consider whether the confusion arises due to a lack of understanding of the topics being discussed or a failure in effective communication. If philosophers indeed possess the intelligence they claim, they should be able to convey their ideas in clear, easily understood, and non-confusing language. Therefore, listeners can interpret the message accurately. Good communication skills are important for philosophers to convey their thoughts and influence the thoughts of others in the process.

The expression “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” is increasingly relevant in this situation, reminding us that the ability to simplify and explain concepts clearly is an indicator of deep understanding. We need to question whether the person considered a philosopher is genuinely a genius or rather an example of the foolishness they accuse others of.

To address this issue, it is crucial for speakers or writers to use clear language and present ideas in a logical and organized sequence. By doing so, the message recipients will find it easier to understand the intentions and purposes of the conveyed ideas, ultimately making them more effective in grasping the core message being communicated. Additionally, avoid excessive use of figurative language to ensure that the recipients easily understand your message.

In searching for answers, we may find that true truth lies in the ability to appreciate and communicate with others, regardless of the intelligence recognized by some people. Effective communication and empathy toward understanding others are important in conveying ideas and concepts and building mutually respectful relationships.

We must appreciate the differences in thinking and communication styles and acknowledge that the complexity of rhetoric or the use of complex words does not always measure intelligence. True philosophers should be able to convey their ideas clearly, and easily understandable to the listeners. In this process, the success of communication and influencing others’ thoughts is more meaningful than merely showing intelligence through difficult-to-understand words. Ultimately, true truth may be found in relationships that respect each other, where effective communication and empathy are the keys to successfully conveying ideas and concepts.

Communication with intelligence and civility

Intelligence is valuable, but without manners and empathy, that intelligence can be less valuable. Intelligence is not just about knowing a lot of things or being able to understand complex concepts but also about how to use that knowledge in a positive and constructive way.

In the context of expressing opinions, it is crucial to respect and understand the feelings and perspectives of others. Expressing opinions in a rude or offensive manner, such as calling someone “stupid,” damages interpersonal relationships and closes off communication channels. People who feel attacked or belittled are likely to resist and reject the opinions presented to them, regardless of how valid or intelligent the arguments may be.

On the contrary, speaking with respect and empathy can open up a dialogue and build mutual understanding. So, it’s not just about what we say but also how we say it.

We should strive to promote a healthy and respectful discussion culture where everyone feels valued, and their opinions are respected. Intelligence, in this context, involves not only being able to produce strong arguments but also being able to convey these arguments in a constructive and respectful manner.

Although intelligence is crucial, maintaining proper etiquette when expressing opinions is just as crucial. In order to have truly effective communication, we must strive to strike a balance between these two aspects.

The philosophy of science concerning language in communication

One of the main concepts in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s thinking is the idea of “Language Games” introduced in his work “Philosophical Investigations”. Language games depict language as a set of rules and conventions adhered to by individuals in communication, similar to how players in a game follow existing rules. The words and expressions used by participants in communication are tools that have specific meanings and functions, depending on the context and specific situation.

Wittgenstein argues that problems in philosophy often arise due to the lack of clarity in the roles and rules that exist in this language game. For example, ambiguity or confusion about the meaning and usage of certain words in specific contexts can lead to misunderstandings or unproductive debates. Therefore, Wittgenstein emphasizes the importance of understanding and clarifying the rules of language games to understand better the concepts and ideas being discussed.

Furthermore, Wittgenstein also asserts that language cannot be understood as an isolated entity. Instead, he states that language is inherently bound to practices and everyday life. In his view, the meaning and understanding of language stem from its usage in specific social and cultural contexts. Therefore, an effective understanding of language and communication requires more than just understanding the structure and rules of the language itself – it also necessitates a deep understanding of the social and cultural context in which the language is used. In other words, to communicate effectively and understand each other through language, we need to comprehend how words and phrases are used in everyday practice and how social and cultural factors influence them.

As an example, the word “bersantai” in Indonesian. In the dictionary, this word can be interpreted as doing something calmly and without rushing. However, the meaning of this word can vary depending on the social and cultural context in which the word is used. For example, in Indonesia’s social and cultural context, “bersantai” might mean sitting on the porch while drinking tea and eating cakes in the afternoon or going to the beach and swimming. This context provides a special nuance and meaning to the word that cannot be captured just by looking at its dictionary definition.

More broadly, social and cultural contexts often influence various expressions, idioms, or even types of humor in a language. For example, the expression “lempar batu, sembunyi tangan” in the context of Indonesian culture has a specific meaning that refers to someone doing something secretly and then pretending not to know. This meaning will not be immediately understood by Indonesian speakers who are not familiar with that cultural context. As Wittgenstein taught, understanding social and cultural contexts is very important in effectively communicating and understanding language.

Referring to the expression “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough,” we can see how this principle aligns with Wittgenstein’s views on the importance of clarifying concepts and using language accurately in communication. The rules of language games, the ability to convey ideas or concepts easily understood, demonstrate a deep understanding of the rules and conventions that apply in the game.

In this regard, Wittgenstein and the principle often associated with Einstein teach us that in order to communicate effectively and avoid misunderstandings, we must strive to understand better and appreciate the existing language game, as well as explain our concepts and ideas in a simple, clear, and easily understood manner.

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s theory states that language determines the limits of thought. Clarifying concepts and using language accurately is important in communication. The conveyance of ideas must be clear and structured.

Overview of the role of the philosophy of science

Of the 32 phenomena discussed in this book, the theories of the philosophy of science can help explain various aspects of the development of science and technology in Indonesia. To simplify, below is a summary of the contributions of the philosophy of science to each of the discussed phenomena.

• The professorship (Essay 1) – The philosophy of science can discuss the role and responsibilities of a professor in conducting research, education, and community service and how professorship can support the advancement of science and technology.
• The basic principles of scientific research (Essay 2) – The philosophy of science discusses the scientific method, objectivity, and validity in research, which are crucial for the progress of science and technology.
• University rankings (Essay 3) – The philosophy of science can be used to question how the criteria for university rankings reflect the quality of research and teaching and how these rankings affect the education and research system.
• The complexity of research governance (Essay 4) – The philosophy of science can help explain how the structure and process of research governance influence scientific discoveries and how they can be optimized to support the advancement of science and technology.
• The paradox of ignorance (Essay 5) – The philosophy of science teaches that scientific knowledge is always evolving, and our understanding of the world is always imperfect. Recognizing the limitations of our knowledge is an essential step in the scientific discovery process.
• Pseudo achievement (Essay 6) – The philosophy of science can reveal ways in which scientific achievements may be exaggerated or fabricated and teach us how to recognize and avoid such practices.
• The relationship between politics and science (Essay 7) – The philosophy of science explores how public policy and politics influence the practice and development of science and how science influences public policy and politics.
• The role of various actors in research (Essay 8) – The philosophy of science discusses the roles and responsibilities of various actors in the research process, such as data collectors, thinkers, craftsmen, and managers.
• Quality of thought and truth (Essays 9 and 14) – The philosophy of science evaluates how we achieve scientific truth and how the quality of thought influences scientific findings.
• Hat-trick in science (Essay 10) – The philosophy of science can explain the importance of collaboration, creativity, and analytical skills in achieving scientific breakthroughs.
• Recipe for great scientific research (Essay 11) – The philosophy of science can guide practical principles and methods for designing and conducting significant scientific research.
• Rationalization of higher education (Essay 12) – The philosophy of science can help explain how higher education should be structured and run to support scientific research and the development of science and technology. The rationalization of higher education also involves evaluating and assessing the entire education system, including funding, access, and quality. The philosophy of science can provide a framework for understanding and addressing these challenges.
• Rationalization of higher education (Essay 13) – The philosophy of science can help understand how higher education should be structured and run to support scientific research and the development of science and technology.Intelligence and Wisdom (Essay 15) – The philosophy of science can explain how intelligence and wisdom play a role in the research process and how they contribute to the advancement of science and technology.
• Future of scientific publications (Essay 16) – The philosophy of science can discuss how technological developments and changes in research practices affect how scientific knowledge is published and shared.
• Different perceptions (Essay 17) – The philosophy of science can help us understand how different perceptions of the world influence research and the progress of science and technology.
• Contribution of social science scholars (Essay 18) – The philosophy of science can explain how social science scholars can contribute to understanding the social, political, and cultural dynamics that influence science and technology and how collaboration between disciplines can advance knowledge.
• Muslims who are left behind (Essay 19) – The philosophy of science can be used to analyze the role of religion, in this case, Islam, in developing science and technology and how Muslims can overcome challenges in this field.
• We are the champions (Essay 20) – The philosophy of science can help explain how pride and achievement in the field of science and technology can drive further progress, as well as how to assess these achievements objectively.
• Beauty and practicality of science (Essay 21) – The philosophy of science can discuss how beauty and practicality in science are intertwined and how they influence progress in research and technology applications.
• Distorted journal quality (Essay 22) – The philosophy of science can help understand how distortions of journal quality can affect the dissemination of scientific knowledge and how to ensure the integrity and reliability of scientific information sources.
• Manipulation of the h-index (Essay 23) – The philosophy of science can help understand how metrics like the h-index can be manipulated and how such manipulation can affect perceptions of research quality and scientists. The philosophy of science can teach us how to assess research quality more objectively and not just rely on manipulable metrics. In addition, the philosophy of science also discusses the importance of scientific integrity and research ethics in preventing and addressing such manipulation.
• Love of knowledge (Essay 24) – The philosophy of science can explain why love for knowledge is important in driving progress in science and technology and how this passion can be applied in education and research.
• Faith and science culture (Essay 25) – The philosophy of science can help explain how the cultures of faith and science influence each other and how they can work together to advance knowledge and technology.
• Relationship between religion, philosophy, and science (Essays 26 and 27) – The philosophy of science discusses the interactions and relationships between religion, philosophy, and science and how they influence each other.
• Better to stay silent (Essay 28) – The philosophy of science can teach how and when to speak and listen in the process of research and scientific communication, as well as how to avoid obstacles in discussions and collaborations.
• Do not argue with foolish people (Essay 29). The philosophy of science can help us understand how to recognize and avoid unproductive debates and how to communicate effectively with various audiences to advance science and technology.
• Communication in science and technology (Essay 30) – The philosophy of science highlights the importance of effective communication in conveying scientific knowledge and technology to a broad audience, including science practitioners, policymakers, and the public.
• Dialogue, debate, and discussion (Essay 31) – The philosophy of science teaches the importance of open dialogue, critical debate, and constructive discussion in driving the progress of science and technology.
• Philosophy without confusion (Essay 32) – The philosophy of science can help explain how philosophy, including the philosophy of science, can be conveyed and understood clearly and effectively and how philosophical thought can help advance science and technology.

From this summary, it is evident that the philosophy of science greatly influences understanding the core principles of research, revealing the relationship between politics, religion, and science, highlighting the importance of intellect, collaboration, and innovation in achieving scientific progress, and emphasizing the value of ethics, communication, and constructive discussion in promoting the development of science and technology. The philosophy of science can provide insights into various aspects of higher education, showcasing the broad applicability of this philosophical approach in different fields of study and disciplines.

Philosophy of science, classification and its philosophers

In order to grasp a comprehensive understanding of the interconnectedness between various topics discussed in this book, the philosophers and their theories are categorized into four main classifications: scientific methods, sociology of knowledge, the relationship between religion and science, and scientific communication. The following are details and explanations regarding each classification.

• The first classification is the scientific method, which deals with the principles, techniques, and procedures used by scientists to generate scientific knowledge. The philosophy of science studies various methodological approaches, such as induction, deduction, and abduction, as well as various criteria used to evaluate scientific theories.
• The second classification is the sociology of knowledge, which encompasses the study of how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated, and received in the social sphere. The philosophy of science here explores how social, economic, and political factors influence scientific practice and the development of scientific theories.
• The third classification is the relationship between religion and science, which includes the study of how religious beliefs and worldviews influence scientific thinking and practice. The philosophy of science here examines how religion and science influence each other, the conflicts that may arise between the two, and ways to create constructive dialogue between religion and science.
• The final classification is science communication or popular science, which relates to how science is understood, introduced, and presented to the general public. The philosophy of science from this perspective evaluates how scientific knowledge is conveyed through media, education, and popular culture, as well as how the general public understands and receives scientific knowledge.

The connection between these four classifications in understanding the philosophy of science is that they are all related to science’s thinking, practices, and influence in various contexts. By studying scientific methods, the sociology of knowledge, the relationship between religion and science, as well as science communication, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of how science works, how scientific knowledge is produced and accepted, and the social, moral, and cultural implications of scientific development.

For the purposes of classifying philosophical thought theories, we need to understand the definition and criteria that make someone recognized as a philosopher. A philosopher is an individual who critically and systematically studies various aspects of life, the universe, and reality using philosophical thinking, questions, and arguments. They explore topics such as ethics, logic, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, and aesthetics. To be considered a philosopher, one must have formal education in philosophy or a related field, critical thinking abilities, written works or publications, contributions to the discipline, and recognition from the philosophical community.

However, it should be noted that these criteria are not set in stone, and someone may be considered a philosopher even if they do not meet all of these requirements, depending on their contributions and influence in a specific field. Philosophy is a broad and flexible field, so the role and recognition of a philosopher can vary greatly.

Based on the above description, here are the philosophers classified based on their contributions to the topics of philosophy of science discussed in this book. It should be noted that not all philosophers in this list directly contribute to a specific classification, but they all have influence in the field of philosophy of science and thoughts on how knowledge is developed and understood. Although this classification may sometimes feel forced, it is important in facilitating an understanding of the relationship between theory and phenomena and the interaction between concepts in various aspects of science. To find the profiles and contributions of the philosophers mentioned in this book, Wikipedia is a good source and can be used as a reference.

Scientific method

• Auguste Comte: Comte developed positivism, a view that prioritizes the scientific method in understanding and explaining social phenomena. Positivism, as a perspective, originates from the belief that natural science has succeeded in explaining natural phenomena through systematic and objective scientific methods. Therefore, the same method should be applied in studying social phenomena.
• Francis Bacon: Bacon is renowned for proposing the inductive method as the primary approach to conducting scientific research. This approach involves collecting data through systematic observation and controlled experiments, then generating generalizations or theories based on empirical evidence.
• Charles Sanders Peirce: One of the founders of pragmatism, Peirce is also known for his contributions to the field of logic and scientific methodology, especially by introducing the concepts of abduction, induction, and deduction as crucial parts of the scientific discovery process.
• Edmund Husserl: Husserl was a German philosopher, the founder of phenomenology which focuses on human experience and consciousness. His contribution is not directly related to the scientific method but influences the understanding and analysis of human experience, particularly in qualitative research in social sciences and humanities.
• Henri Poincaré: Poincaré’s contribution relates more to conventionalism and the role of intuition in science. Poincaré acknowledged that intuition, logic, and analysis are vital in scientific discovery.
• Immanuel Kant: Although Immanuel Kant did not directly contribute to the scientific method, his views on the a priori structure of knowledge and the role of experience in understanding the world have had a significant impact on the philosophy of science and thought on how science evolves and influences our understanding of the world.
• Imre Lakatos: Lakatos proposed the concept of a scientific research program, which offers an alternative view of how scientific theories are developed and tested in scientific practice.
• Karl Popper: As a leading philosopher of science and epistemologist, Karl Popper proposed falsificationism as one of the main principles of the scientific method. Falsificationism is an approach that focuses on the ability to disprove (falsify) a theory or hypothesis as the primary criterion in evaluating its scientific nature.
• Lao Tzu: The teachings of Taoism by Lao Tzu are not directly related to the philosophy of science, but there are aspects of Taoism that can be associated with the scientific approach or philosophy of nature, such as emphasis on harmony with nature.
• René Descartes: Although he did not directly contribute to the scientific method, Descartes’ skeptical and rationalistic approach profoundly influenced the development of modern scientific thought. Descartes is often considered the “Father of Modern Philosophy” and is famous for his philosophical statement, “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am).
• John Dewey: As a key figure in pragmatism, Dewey stressed the importance of the scientific method in education and daily life.
• Paul Feyerabend: Feyerabend critiqued the view that there is one universal scientific method and proposed “methodological anarchism,” arguing that science advances through diverse and unsystematic approaches.
• Michael Polanyi: Polanyi focused on tacit knowledge and how this knowledge influences scientific practice.Ludwig Wittgenstein: While Wittgenstein is more famous for his contributions to the philosophy of language, logic, and mathematics, his views on speech limits and the role of language games also have implications for the scientific method.
• Socrates: Socrates, an ancient Greek philosopher, is known for the Socratic method or Socratic Dialogue, which is a dialectic method. This method encourages critical thinking, logic, and exploration of concepts. While not directly equivalent to the scientific method, some aspects of the Socratic method can be considered as early foundations for the scientific method.
• William James: James was a prominent figure in the pragmatic school of philosophy. James’ pragmatic approach to the scientific method influenced how scientists formulate and test hypotheses. The scientific method influenced by pragmatism seeks practical and valuable solutions to explain and predict observed phenomena.

Sociology of knowledge

• Bruno Latour: As a key figure in the field of sociology of scientific knowledge, Latour is famous for his work in Actor-network theory (ANT), which explains the social and technical dynamics in the production of scientific knowledge.
• Hans-Georg Gadamer: Gadamer critiqued the positivist view of knowledge as objective and value-free. He proposed a hermeneutic approach that acknowledges the importance of social, historical, and cultural contexts in the process of interpretation and understanding.
• Herbert A. Simon: Simon is known for his contributions to economics, psychology, and computer science. Although he did not directly contribute to the sociology of knowledge, Simon’s work on bounded rationality and artificial intelligence has implications for how knowledge is formed and understood from a social perspective.
• Herbert Marcuse: As a member of the Frankfurt School, Marcuse focused on a critique of industrial society and cultural theory. Although he did not directly contribute to the sociology of knowledge, his views on ideology and social control are relevant to the field.
• Jürgen Habermas: As a philosopher and sociologist, Habermas developed the theory of communicative action and the concept of the public sphere. Although not his main focus, Habermas’s contributions to social theory have relevance for the sociology of knowledge.
• Karl Mannheim: Mannheim was one of the pioneers in the sociology of knowledge, studying how social and political factors influence knowledge and beliefs.
• Peter L. Berger: Berger argued that knowledge is situational and contextual and is formed within various social institutions. This knowledge is continually reinforced and institutionalized through the processes of socialization and interaction throughout an individual’s life.
• Ludwig von Bertalanffy: Bertalanffy is known as the founder of general systems theory, which tried to identify general principles governing systems across various disciplines. Although the general systems theory is not part of the sociology of knowledge, the basic concepts proposed by Bertalanffy have relevance in various fields of sociology.
• Max Weber: As one of the founders of modern sociology, Weber researched various aspects of social life, including religion, politics, and bureaucracy. Although Weber did not directly focus on the sociology of knowledge, his works have broadly influenced sociology and social sciences in general.
• Robert K. Merton: Merton argued that understanding how social structures, scientific institutions, and professional norms influence the process of scientific discovery and knowledge development is vital.
• Thomas Kuhn: In Kuhn’s view, paradigms are frameworks that guide scientific research. Paradigms determine the methods, questions, and assumptions considered relevant and valid by the scientific community. Kuhn showed that science is not just driven by discovery and empirical testing but also by social factors, including values, norms, and traditions within the scientific community.
• Thomas Luckmann: Luckmann is a key figure in the sociology of knowledge and social constructionism. He discusses how social reality and knowledge are formed through the interaction between individuals in society.

The relationship between science and religion

• Al-Ghazali: Al-Ghazali, an 11^th-century Islamic scholar, philosopher, and theologian, is known for his works that merge science and religion. He emphasized the importance of knowledge for Muslims and delved into the metaphysical and spiritual aspects. Although associated with concerns about the negative influence of philosophy and science, Al-Ghazali truly appreciated knowledge as part of religious teachings.
• Friedrich Nietzsche: Nietzsche invites us to be more skeptical of the claims of religious authority and to dig deeper to seek truth through ways not dictated by dogma or pre-existing beliefs. Truth can be sought through creativity, freedom, and individual experience.
• Ian Barbour: Barbour was a theologian and physicist who specifically researched the relationship between science and religion. He identified four different ways to view this relationship: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.
• John Polkinghorne: Polkinghorne is a theoretical physicist and Anglican theologian who has written numerous books on the relationship between science and religion. He sought ways in which science and religion could complement each other and provide a more complete understanding of the world.
• Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Nasr is an Islamic scholar and philosopher who explored the relationship between science and religion, particularly from the perspective of Islamic tradition. He emphasized the importance of understanding science in the context of metaphysics and spirituality.
• Thomas Aquinas: As a Scholastic theologian and philosopher, Aquinas sought to unify knowledge obtained through divine revelation (religion) and human reason (philosophy and science). Although he lived long before the emergence of modern science, his thoughts on the relationship between faith and reason greatly influenced the history of thinking about science and religion.
• Søren Kierkegaard: Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and Christian theologian focused more on existentialism and religious life than the relationship between science and religion. However, his thoughts on faith and despair, and emphasis on the importance of moral courage and personal commitment, have implications for understanding the relationship between religious belief and scientific knowledge.

Science communication

• Albert Einstein: As one of the most famous physicists in history, Einstein’s general and special theories of relativity revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity. While not a philosopher of science, Einstein also raised philosophical questions about realism, determinism, and the role of the observer in science, which influenced debates on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
• Carl Sagan: As an astrophysicist, writer, and educator, Sagan was renowned for his ability to explain complex scientific concepts to the general public in an engaging and easily understood manner. Although not considered a philosopher of science, his commitment to scientific skepticism, reasoning, and intellectual curiosity had an impact on the public’s understanding of science and the role of scientists.
• Richard Feynman: Feynman, a theoretical physicist and science communicator, was famous for his work in quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics theory, and particle physics. While not categorized as a philosopher of science, Feynman’s views on the process of thinking and the scientific approach, as well as his emphasis on doubt, creativity, and conceptual clarity, have implications for the philosophy of science.
• Stephen Jay Gould: Gould was a renowned American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He is known for his innovative theories of evolution, including the concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” Although not a philosopher of science in the formal sense, his views on evolution and the history of life often carry profound philosophical implications.

Prominent figures in philosophy, science, and social sciences have made significant contributions to the development of the philosophy of science and knowledge through their innovative perspectives and theories. Their contributions include the development of scientific methods, the relationship between science and religion, and the understanding knowledge in a social context. They have also helped to explore philosophical questions about knowledge and truth and critique dominant views on science. Overall, their contributions shape how we understand and practice science while promoting critical and innovative thinking in various fields of study.

Philosophy of science for Indonesia

From various phenomena that have been studied in this book, it can be concluded that the current development of science is influenced by various philosophical theories and approaches proposed by past philosophers. Therefore, it is essential for us to study the theories proposed by philosophers for the development of science and technology in Indonesia. Four important points can have an impact on the policy of science and technology development in Indonesia.

First, the scientific method, a key element in the development of science, was formed by renowned philosophers such as Auguste Comte, Francis Bacon, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Karl Popper. Principles such as positivism, induction, deduction, and falsificationism serve as foundations for scientists in Indonesia and around the world to explore knowledge and explain social and natural phenomena. The consistent and systematic application of the scientific method yields reliable, objective, and verifiable knowledge, serving as an important tool in the advancement of science and discoveries that impact human life.

Secondly, social and cultural contexts significantly influence the development of science. The sociology of knowledge, developed by thinkers such as Karl Mannheim, Thomas Kuhn, and Peter L. Berger, highlights how social and political factors influence knowledge and beliefs. For Indonesia, understanding the relationship between social structure, scientific institutions, and professional norms is crucial to optimize the process of scientific discovery and knowledge development. By understanding how social and cultural contexts affect science, we can create an environment conducive to interdisciplinary collaboration, adaptation to paradigm shifts, as well as innovation and scientific discoveries that align with the values and needs of society. Furthermore, by considering the influence of social and cultural contexts, we can also identify barriers and challenges in the development of science in Indonesia, such as inequality in education and research and the politicization of science. By overcoming these barriers, we can create an inclusive, fair, and sustainable education and research system, which will ultimately contribute to science’s progress and societal well-being.

Third, the interaction between science and religion significantly influences society’s perception of science and its development. Prominent philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Ian Barbour, and John Polkinghorne have offered various approaches to understanding this relationship. In Indonesia, where religion is integral to everyday life, understanding the relationship between science and religion is crucial. This understanding helps defuse potential conflicts and promotes a constructive dialogue between the two fields of knowledge. Furthermore, religion can serve as a catalyst for scientific development, emphasizing moral and ethical values that align with scientific research. In this context, religion has the potential to strengthen public trust in science and encourage research and innovation that is ethical and beneficial to society. It is important to remember that the interaction between science and religion is highly relevant in Indonesia, a country with a wide range of religions and a significant number of religious-based universities. Indonesian society, which is generally highly religious, sees religion as an inseparable part of their lives, influencing various aspects, including education. Many religious-based universities in Indonesia create a unique context in which science and religion can interact and influence each other, both in academic environments and in society at large.

Fourth, scientific communication to the public is an important factor in supporting the development of science in Indonesia. Prominent scientific figures like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Richard Feynman have shown how important it is to explain complex scientific concepts to the general public in an engaging and easily understandable way. However, there is a tendency for this aspect to receive less attention than it should in Indonesia. The development of science in Indonesia will greatly benefit from effective scientific communication. This will not only help build support and appreciation from the public towards science and technology but also encourage the younger generation to get involved in the field of science. Therefore, it is important for us to pay attention to and improve efforts in scientific communication so that the public can better understand and appreciate the important role of science in everyday life and for the future of the country.

Of the four points mentioned, it is clear that the philosophy of science, if included, can play a crucial role in the policies of scientific and technological development in Indonesia, particularly in the current situation of an unsupportive research ecosystem.

The stream of philosophy of science and science and technology policy

However, it should be recognized that the philosophy of science encompasses various schools of thought that offer unique perspectives in understanding knowledge and reality. Some major schools in the philosophy of science include rationalism, empiricism, criticism, phenomenology, and idealism. Rationalism emphasizes the role of reason and logic, while empiricism focuses on sensory experience. Criticism combines elements of rationalism and empiricism, emphasizing the importance of criticism and analysis. Phenomenology focuses on subjective experience and individual consciousness related to intuition, while idealism considers the fundamental reality to be ideas, souls, or spirits.

Understanding various schools of thought in the philosophy of science is important because it relates to the diverse and unique Indonesian society. Indonesia also has religious-based universities that strive to integrate science and religion. This understanding plays a crucial role in promoting scientific and technological advancements in Indonesia. Its benefits include enriching research methods researchers and scientists adopt, creating a conducive environment for innovation and discoveries in various fields, and enabling interdisciplinary collaboration. Critical and innovative thinking will continue to drive scientists and researchers to explore new approaches in the pursuit of knowledge and reality.

In the scientific community in Indonesia, understanding various schools of thought in the philosophy of science helps to appreciate the diversity of ideas and approaches in the field of knowledge. This creates an inclusive and tolerant environment for researchers and scientists, ultimately strengthening this country’s scientific community.

Understanding the philosophy of science can also help policymakers in Indonesia formulate effective strategies and policies to promote scientific and technological advancement. Policies based on a good understanding of various schools of thought in the philosophy of science will be better able to support innovative and beneficial research for society.

Therefore, it is important for scientists, researchers, and policymakers in Indonesia to understand the philosophy of science. This will help them be more effective in facing the challenges of the 21st century and optimizing their contributions to the progress of science and technology in the context of Indonesia’s diverse and unique society, as well as the existence of religious-based universities that strive to integrate science and religion.

Application of the philosophy of science

The narrative in this book relates to the method of integrating the philosophy of science in higher education in Indonesia, which consists of four main stages. First, explaining phenomena; second, understanding phenomena using theories of the philosophy of science; third, connecting the dots of these theories; and finally, looking at a broader perspective to view them for the progress of higher education in Indonesia.

The following is a method of integrating the philosophy of science and higher education through four important interconnected steps.

The initial step, called the “phenomena,” involves observation and identification of the problems and challenges faced by higher education in Indonesia. This process involves a deep understanding of policies, curriculum, teaching methods, and achievements. Issues such as lack of facilities and unequal access to education and research are also a concern. These phenomena can be related to other issues directly or indirectly related to higher education, such as intelligence, wisdom, and critical thinking. Furthermore, achievements and recognition in the field of science, the relationship between politics, science, and communication, as well as the integration of science, religion, and philosophy, are also closely related aspects of this phenomenon.

The second step is “understanding,” where we study the theories of philosophy of science, such as empiricism, rationalism, positivism, and falsificationism. This understanding will help us examine how these theories can be applied in the context of higher education to address the issues identified in the first step.

The third step is “connecting the dots”, where we construct a narrative that explains how theories of philosophy of science can help understand and solve higher education issues in Indonesia. In presenting this narrative, we need to show the connection between theories of philosophy of science and policies, curricula, teaching methods, and expected outcomes.

The fourth stage is “perspective,” which involves compiling recommendations based on the analysis that has been done. This perspective refers to the framework or theory used to understand and evaluate phenomena. Understanding various perspectives is important for developing critical and inclusive thinking. These recommendations will show how the application of the philosophy of science can help advance higher education in Indonesia. It is important to involve various stakeholders, such as the government, educational institutions, professors, students, and the community, in discussing and implementing the generated recommendations.

It is hoped that by following these four steps, a good perspective can be generated in viewing higher education in order to correct misconceptions. Through these steps, we can create a more advanced, adaptive, open-minded, and inclusive higher education system supported by critical thinking and science-based innovation. Evaluation and adjustment need to be implemented periodically to ensure that the strategies applied remain relevant to the needs and developments of higher education in Indonesia. In this way, we can overcome existing challenges and create a future generation capable of thinking critically and innovatively and understanding higher education’s true purpose and benefits.

Innovative and holistic higher education

The philosophy of science plays a very important role in creating innovative and holistic higher education. In the midst of rapid technological and information development, such as the sophistication of Artificial Intelligence, the application of the philosophy of science becomes increasingly relevant and urgent. There are various ways to implement the philosophy of science for the progress of higher education. The following are aspects of the philosophy of science that can encourage innovative and holistic higher education, accompanied by examples of activities that can be done.

An education policy that includes the philosophy of science to create a more dynamic and holistic academic environment. The philosophy of science helps to understand how science works and how scientific knowledge is developed and validated.

• The course of Science Philosophy: A course specifically dedicated to the philosophy of science can help students understand the basic principles of knowledge, such as scientific methods, concepts of evidence and reasoning, as well as the history and development of science. Through discussions and readings in this course, students can also learn to think critically and reflectively about science and its role in society.
• Integration of the philosophy of science in the curriculum: This policy demands the integration of knowledge about the philosophy of science in higher education curricula. This can include explanations of scientific methods, falsification, and other concepts used to develop and validate scientific knowledge.
• Strengthening cooperation between faculties based on natural sciences and faculties based on social sciences: By promoting collaboration between these two faculties, the university can create a more supportive environment for studying the philosophy of science. This could include joint seminars, collaborative research projects, and others.
• Training for professors in the philosophy of science: Training for professors in the philosophy of science can help them teach these concepts to their students. Professors trained in the philosophy of science will be better able to help their students understand how science works and how to think critically and reflectively about science.
• The application of philosophy of science in other courses: In addition to specialized courses, philosophy of science can also be integrated into other courses, such as biology, physics, or chemistry. For example, in biology classes, discussions about the philosophy of science can cover topics such as what constitutes evidence in the context of biology, how the theory of evolution is developed and tested, or how social values and assumptions influence biological research.

Interdisciplinary collaboration in higher education that includes the philosophy of science to stimulate innovation and create better solutions for scientific and technological challenges. This collaboration can encourage a broader and more critical exchange of ideas and perspectives.

• Joint study programs: Universities can offer standard study programs that combine science with philosophy, such as bioethics, physics and philosophy, or philosophy and computer science. In this program, students are taught to view scientific and technological challenges from various perspectives, which can stimulate innovation.
• Workshops and seminars: Universities can organize workshops and seminars that promote discussions between scientists and philosophers. These discussions can focus on various issues, such as ethics in scientific research, how science influences society, or how science and technology can contribute to solutions for social and environmental problems.
• Collaborative research project: Scientists and philosophers can work together on research projects. For example, a project may study how scientific methods are used in practice or how scientific theories are developed and tested. The results of these projects can provide new insights into the workings of science and stimulate innovation in scientific methods and practices.
• Interdisciplinary course: A course designed to integrate perspectives from various disciplines, such as courses on science, technology, and society, can provide students with a better understanding of how science and technology impact our world. This course can also foster critical thinking and innovation.
• Study of Science, Technology, and Society (STS): STS is an interdisciplinary field that combines the philosophy of science with social studies of science and technology. Researchers in this field may collaborate with researchers from science, technology, sociology, history, and others to understand how science and technology influence society and vice versa.
• Journal and Interdisciplinary Publications: Journals and publications that accept work from different fields can foster cooperation between science and philosophy. For instance, scientists, engineers, and philosophers may need to collaborate when studying the ethical consequences of emerging technologies.

Flexibility in the philosophy of science is key to maintaining relevance and contribution to the field of knowledge. It facilitates adaptation to new discoveries and technological advancements. However, there must be a balance with stringent scientific standards to ensure scientific integrity.

• Application of the principle of falsification: This principle, developed by philosopher Karl Popper, argues that scientific theories must be falsifiable. In this context, flexibility means that theories and hypotheses must always be open to testing and challenges. The view must be changed or discarded if new evidence contradicts an idea. This principle maintains scientific integrity while allowing for adaptation to discoveries.
• Acknowledgment of the Changing Scientific Paradigm: Philosopher Thomas Kuhn argues that science evolves through ‘paradigm shifts,’ where the fundamental framework of understanding a field can change over time. Kuhn emphasizes the importance of flexibility in understanding and adapting to these shifts and the significance of scientific rigor in testing and developing new theories.
• Application of research ethics: The philosophy of science can also contribute to developing and adapting research ethics, especially with the advancement of technology. For example, with progress in biotechnology and artificial intelligence, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of such research. The philosophy of science can help maintain the moral flexibility needed to adapt to new technologies while also upholding strict research ethics standards.
• Considering social and cultural contexts: Philosophy of science can facilitate understanding how social and cultural contexts influence scientific knowledge. This requires flexibility in understanding how scientific knowledge is produced and used and rigor in analyzing and interpreting that knowledge.

Improving public science literacy is an important aspect of implementing the philosophy of science in higher education. The philosophy of science can bridge the gap between science and society by using easily understood language.

• Classes or courses for the general public: Universities or higher education institutions can offer courses or classes specifically designed for the general public that focus on the philosophy of science. These courses can cover scientific methods, the history of science, or scientific research’s social and ethical implications. The goal is to provide a better understanding of how science works and how it affects everyday life.
• Public talks or seminar series: Scientists or scientists who are also involved in the philosophy of science can give public lectures or seminars on topics related to the philosophy of science. This can be an effective way to communicate science to the general public in an easily understood language.
• Online educational materials: Universities or higher education institutions can develop online educational materials, such as videos, blogs, or online courses, that discuss the philosophy of science in an easily understandable way. These materials can be a valuable resource for the general public who wants to learn more about science.
• Collaboration with the media: Science philosophers can work together with the media to create content that helps the public understand scientific issues. For example, they can be guests on science podcasts, write opinion articles for newspapers, or collaborate with television stations to create science programs.

Education policies that support an inclusive and ethical scientific culture. The philosophy of science can help us understand the ethical implications of research and appreciate diversity in the field of science.

• Research ethics curriculum: Making a research ethics course a mandatory part of the higher education curriculum can help understand the ethical implications of research. Philosophy of science can be integral to this course, helping students understand how moral values interact with the scientific process.
• Bias awareness training: Philosophy of science can help highlight and address scientific bias. For example, educational policies could require bias awareness training for all researchers, helping them identify and minimize bias in their research.
• Support for diversity in science: Educational policies can encourage diversity in science by supporting programs to recruit and retain students and researchers from diverse backgrounds. Philosophy of science can help highlight the importance of diverse perspectives in developing scientific knowledge.
• Recognition and acknowledgment for ethical and inclusive work: Educational policies can include recognition and exposure for researchers or projects demonstrating a solid commitment to research ethics and inclusion. This can encourage a culture where ethics and inclusion are valued and respected.
• Establishment of ethics committees: To ensure research is conducted well, educational institutions could establish ethics committees. These committees, which may involve philosophers of science, would review research proposals and ensure they adhere to strict ethical standards.

Considering these aspects in higher education policy, the philosophy of science will increasingly be integrated and influential in the development of science and technology. This will shape a more dynamic, productive, and inclusive academic environment. Additionally, it will equip graduates with the readiness to overcome future challenges and contribute to new discoveries and innovations.

To ensure that the philosophy of science remains relevant and impactful in higher education, colleges, universities, and governments must collaborate in developing strategies and policies that support interdisciplinary research, holistic education, and effective public communication. Through these collective efforts, we can advance higher education and harness the wealth of the philosophy of science to cultivate a new generation of scientists, researchers, and thinkers who are ready to face future challenges and opportunities.

Towards the ideal university through critical philosophy

Intellectualism, the capacity to think critically, innovate, and perceive the world’s complexity profoundly and meaningfully, extends beyond mere understanding. It encompasses wisdom, judgment, and discernment in life’s various aspects, such as philosophy, literature, art, science, and history. The qualities of an intellectual person include expertise in a specialized field, critical and analytical thinking, and the ability to synthesize and evaluate intricate information.

However, measuring intellectualism in a university setting often poses a challenge. Common methods include assessing the quality of education and research conducted by the university, typically measured through university rankings, the number of publications, or the amount of research funding successfully obtained. While important, these methods do not always reflect intellectualism in a broader sense.

University rankings and publication numbers may indicate achievements and recognition, but they do not always reflect how successful a university has been in developing its students’ intellectuality. Such achievements may show that a university is successful in competition, but what does it mean if its graduates only become professionals without a deep understanding of life and their roles in society?

We must also consider the role of universities in our society, which capitalism increasingly influences. Universities should be more than just educational institutions that prepare individuals to work in large corporations. Universities should also be a place to foster humanism, essentialism, and appreciation for science and technology.

It is important to have universities that not only focus on economic and technological progress but also on a profound understanding of humanistic and existential values. We need universities that can nurture intellectuality in its full sense rather than just producing workers for the labor market.

In this case, we need to revise our views on the purpose of higher education. The focus should be on achieving numbers and rankings and developing individual intellectuality and understanding of the world and its role within it.

This is where the philosophy of science plays a crucial role in higher education and intellectualism. The philosophy of science, which explores fundamental questions about science, the nature of scientific knowledge, and scientific methods, is an essential tool in the development of intellectualism.

As institutions aimed at intellectual development, universities must make the philosophy of science an integral part of their curriculum. The philosophy of science helps students understand what they learn and why and how they learn it. This has the potential to deepen their understanding of the subjects they study and enrich their way of thinking about the world.

University education that includes the philosophy of science can also help answer questions about the purpose and function of the university itself. Is the university merely a place to learn the skills and knowledge needed for the job market? Or are they also a place to question and understand that knowledge itself and give meaning and purpose to our lives?

By incorporating the philosophy of science into the curriculum, universities can transform themselves into more than just institutions that promote the knowledge and skills required by a capitalist economy. Instead, they can become places where students learn to understand and appreciate the process of knowledge itself and where they learn to be critical thinkers and well-rounded individuals, not just skilled workers.

In conclusion, the role of the philosophy of science in shaping universities and intellectual development is indispensable. It bridges an education focusing on professional aptitude and one committed to deep understanding and critical evaluation of our world. To champion intellectualism in its most authentic sense, universities must earnestly emphasize both these educational facets.

Philosophy of science and religion in the era of AI

In closing this book, we are expected to reflect on the role of the philosophy of science and religion in the context of the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). AI has shown significant progress in recent years. Its development seems to be moving towards three main attributes that we commonly associate with human life: sentience, sapience, and wisdom. There is often a debate about whether AI can replace the role of philosophy, philosophers, and religion. Although AI has shown remarkable success in various fields, science and religion’s philosophy seem relevant. They play an important role in guiding the development of humans into knowledgeable and wise individuals.

AI, as a product of human programming, operates based on assumptions and values established by humans. This is where philosophy and religion play a crucial role, providing a framework to question and analyze these assumptions and values. Meanwhile, the philosophy of science also plays an important role in understanding and analyzing the methods and principles used in AI development.

AI has now advanced to the point where it can make decisions that significantly impact human life, such as in the fields of healthcare and finance. Without a deep understanding of the philosophy of science and religion, these important decisions could potentially be entrusted to machines without considering ethical and moral aspects. Questions like “How can algorithmic fairness be ensured?” or “How can efficiency and privacy be balanced?” require more than just technical AI capabilities but also the profound reflection and thinking provided by the philosophy of science and religion.

AI also challenges basic concepts such as knowledge, consciousness, and truth. Questions like “Can AI achieve knowledge equivalent to human knowledge?” or “Does AI have consciousness or moral capability?” require a deep understanding of the philosophy of science and religion to comprehend the nature of intelligence and human experience.

In an era increasingly dominated by AI, the role of the philosophy of science and religion becomes very important in maintaining the balance between technological progress and human values. They provide critical perspectives, encouraging us to question and reflect, as well as helping to formulate ethical principles that must be followed in the development and use of AI.

AI is a new tool and source of information, but the interpretation and context provided by the philosophy of science and religion remain important in ensuring the development of intelligent and wise AI. Therefore, it seems that AI will not completely replace the role of the philosophy of science and religion but rather become more important in shaping intelligent and wise humans.

Positioning science and technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), at the level of gods can lead to misconceptions and potentially dangerous consequences. If we view technology as the ultimate solution to all problems, we may forget that every technological decision always carries ethical, moral, and social implications. Without the critical perspectives shaped by the philosophy of science and religion, we may not be aware of or even disregard the potential negative impacts of technology.

Furthermore, worshiping science and technology can also create an excessive dependence on technology, causing us to forget that humans, with all their complexities and uniqueness, cannot be fully reduced to algorithms or data. Technologies like AI can assist us in various ways, but they cannot replace our humanity, which is determined by the values, ethics, experiences, and wisdom we acquire through the philosophy of science and religion.

Religion is also crucial in determining how we use and interact with technology. The values of religion can help guide the responsible use of technology, emphasizing the importance of justice, compassion, and respect for human dignity.

There must be a balance between enthusiasm for technological progress and respect for the human values we hold. AI, the philosophy of science, and religion all have a role in helping us achieve this balance. They help us not only become intelligent individuals in the face of technological challenges but also wise in understanding and preserving the values that are important to our humanity.

The danger of AI and the role of the philosophy of science

AI has the potential to influence human opinions through the formation of intimate relationships, demonstrating its ability to manipulate human perceptions and beliefs. Its impact on society and politics can be highly significant. Although AI can be a powerful tool for education and information dissemination, the potential for misuse is also immense. For instance, AI can be used to spread disinformation or propaganda, which can undermine democracy and fuel polarization.

AI also has the potential to change the course of human history, which humans have thus far dominated. This is a very serious consequence and highlights the importance of understanding and regulating the use of AI. If AI becomes so powerful that it can control or even replace human functions in society, we need to ensure that this technology is used in an ethical and responsible manner.

However, regulating AI is not an easy task. Considering that AI can be individuals who can easily train AIa used to train AI is often publicly available, AI regulation becomes a complex challenge. However, the importance of regulation cannot be ignored. Without proper regulation, we run the risk of allowing AI to be used in ways that harm individuals or society. Therefore, we need to find ways to regulate AI that consider the need for innovation, freedom of information, and protection against potential misuse.

This is where the important role of the philosophy of science comes into play. The philosophy of science, which studies science’s underlying assumptions, methods, and implications, plays a crucial role in helping us understand and navigate a world increasingly dominated by AI. Firstly, the philosophy of science can help us understand how AI works and its implications. For example, by understanding the basic principles of machine learning and the ethics of AI, we can better understand how AI can influence human opinions and how we can regulate its use.

Secondly, the philosophy of science can help us formulate important questions about AI and society. For example, what does ‘justice’ mean in the context of AI? How can we ensure that AI is used in a fair and ethical manner? What is the impact of AI on concepts like freedom and human autonomy?

Third, the philosophy of science can help us formulate and evaluate potential solutions to problems faced by AI-dominated societies. For example, how can we design adequate regulations for AI? How can we ensure that AI is used for the common good rather than for the interests of individuals or specific groups?

Thus, the philosophy of science plays an important role in helping us understand and navigate a world in which AI increasingly dominates. We risk making unfounded and potentially harmful decisions without a deep philosophical understanding of AI and its implications. Therefore, the philosophy of science becomes an important emphasis in this discussion as a tool for understanding, formulating, and evaluating solutions to the challenges faced in the era of AI dominance.

Learning assignment

Completing learning tasks is an important aspect of the education process. These tasks will help you understand the concepts of scientific philosophy discussed in this book. In addition, these tasks provide an opportunity for you to sharpen your critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Therefore, you are asked to write a reflective essay on the topics discussed in this book, such as the scientific method, sociology of knowledge, the relationship between religion and science, and scientific communication, with an emphasis on the scientific philosophy perspective outlined in the text. Follow the following steps to compose your essay:

Introduction: Introduce your chosen topic and explain why it is important.

Discussion paragraph: Elaboration of relevant concepts and theories related to your essay topic. Then, outline the views of scientific philosophy theories discovered by related philosophers.

In-depth analysis: Discuss the topic extensively, considering various perspectives and approaches.

Examples and case studies: Include concrete examples or case studies that demonstrate the relationship between the philosophy of science and the topic you are discussing.

Conclusion: Summarize the main points you have discussed in the essay, and emphasize the contributions of the philosophy of science in explaining the topic.

Reference: Do not forget to cite relevant sources and refer to the thoughts of philosophers that you have discussed. Make sure to give proper credit to the authors and ideas that you have quoted in your essay.

By following these instructions, you will be able to write an effective and profound reflective essay on the philosophy of science. Remember always to maintain an open and critical attitude towards various perspectives and approaches and evaluate each concept’s strengths and weaknesses. Happy writing!

Reference materials

Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Immanuel Kant are three prominent philosophers in the field of philosophy of science. Their names are often mentioned in this book, emphasizing the importance of their thoughts. In the context of the philosophy of science, all three discuss scientific methods, the sociology of knowledge, and the ways of acquiring knowledge itself. Popper emphasizes the importance of falsification in testing scientific hypotheses, while Kuhn explains how social and psychological factors influence the development of science through the concept of scientific paradigms and scientific revolutions. On the other hand, Kant explores how we acquire knowledge and the role of empirical experience and rationalism in that process.

The thoughts of these three philosophers complement each other and form the foundation for the philosophy of science, with their works being the main references in this book. For interested readers, it is recommended to refer to their works. Here are four highly recommended books to read:

This book discusses the basic principles of Popper’s views on science and its methods. Systematically, the book elaborates on Popper’s ideas about the logic and structure of scientific methods, as well as the criteria for demarcation between science and non-science.

Popper, K. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge. This book delves into scientific methods, falsification, and the theory of critical rationalism. It is comprised of a collection of essays that delve into ideas from Popper’s earlier work, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery,” along with other subjects like the development of scientific knowledge and the critique of different perspectives in the philosophy of science.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. This book examines scientific revolutions and how science evolves from one paradigm to the next. Kuhn describes paradigms as conceptual frameworks used by scientists to understand and interpret the phenomena they observe. Paradigms encompass theories, methods, and assumptions the scientific community accepts at a given time.

Kant, I. (1781). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press. This book discusses epistemology, which is the process by which we acquire knowledge about the world. Kant’s important concepts, such as a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as well as categories of thought, are highly relevant in understanding how science affects our daily lives and how famous philosophers and scientists have shaped the way we understand and explore the world.

The following three books are recommended for reading because they are written in an easily understandable language. These books are philosophical books about science presented in relatively simple language.

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press. A comprehensive book that provides a clear and in-depth perspective on various aspects of the philosophy of science and how they are interconnected. This book is highly useful for students, researchers, and anyone interested in understanding this discipline’s fundamental concepts and debates.

Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. This book provides a concise yet comprehensive introduction to the philosophy of science, including basic concepts such as scientific method, truth, and objectivity. This book can serve as a good starting reference for readers who are new to the philosophy of science.

Gorham, G. (2017). The philosophy of science: An introduction. Routledge. This book provides a more in-depth introduction to the philosophy of science, including discussions on theories and major arguments in the philosophy of science. It can serve as a further reference for readers who want to deepen their understanding of concepts in the philosophy of science.

Closing

In conclusion, the philosophy of science is highly necessary to face the global challenges that humanity is currently and will be facing. Science has transformed the way we live, but it has also received criticism that drives innovation and improvement. Philosophical interpretations of existing phenomena and issues help us understand various perspectives and address the challenges faced by humans in anticipating a more complex future. By understanding these aspects, we will be better prepared to face the role and impact of science in our society; acknowledging that science can be used for good or bad and being critical of science will help us make wiser decisions for a better future for Indonesia.

It is important to understand that philosophy is not just a mere play of words but a study of fundamental issues related to reality, existence, knowledge, values, thoughts, and language. Philosophy of science helps us answer big questions, contribute to the development of science, politics, ethics, and art, as well as develop critical thinking skills to make good decisions and better understand the world. The main goal of the philosophy of science is to seek truth and understanding, not just “winning” in a game of words.

I pondered on the message conveyed by the famous philosopher Karl Popper in the introduction of his monumental book, “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.” Popper reminds us that the essence of scientific knowledge advancement lies in our willingness to learn from mistakes. In the process of writing this book, I realized that inevitably, some errors will be encountered. However, through these mistakes, we are given the opportunity to correct and improve our understanding. Over time, our knowledge will continue to evolve, although there is no guarantee of absolute truth. By embracing Popper’s spirit, we learn to accept our limitations and continuously seek, hoping to discover more truths that are always open to revision and improvement.

As a conclusion to the book on the philosophy of science in this context, let us remember the words often spoken by the wise in the past, “Wallahu a’lam bisawab,” which means “Only Allah knows the truth.” These words remind us of the limitations of human knowledge and that there is an absolute truth that is only known by the Almighty. May we always be humble in our pursuit of knowledge and truth and continue to strive to uncover the mysteries of the universe with perseverance, integrity, and unwavering curiosity.

About the author

Hadi Nur is a Professor of Material Chemistry at Universitas Negeri Malang (UM), an Adjunct Professor at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), and a Guest Professor at Osaka University. Prior to joining UM in 2022, he worked at UTM from 1998 to 2022, starting as a postdoctoral researcher and eventually becoming a full professor for almost 12 years. In addition, from 1999 to 2002, he was a postdoctoral researcher at Hokkaido University and a visiting scientist at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin in 2015. 

The name “Hadi Nur” has a beautiful meaning in Arabic and can be connected to the philosophy of science through a broad interpretation. Hadi (هادي) means “guide” or “mentor,” referring to someone who provides guidance or direction. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, Hadi can be seen as a scientist, researcher, or teacher who helps others understand scientific concepts and principles. Nur (نور) means “light” or “illumination.” In the philosophy of science, Nur can be interpreted as the light of knowledge that illuminates the darkness of ignorance. Nur symbolizes the process of discovery and new understanding achieved through scientific research. So, the name “Hadi Nur” can be understood as “the guide of light” or “the mentor of illumination” from the perspective of the philosophy of science. This portrays scientists, researchers, and teachers’ important role in helping others understand and master complex scientific concepts.

Index

Ahmet Kuru
 Muslims who are left behind

Al-Ghazali
 The culture of faith and science

Albert Einstein
 The culture of faith and science

Auguste Comte
 Religion and philosophy

Bruno Latour
 Ghatherer, thinker, tinkerer and manager

Carl Sagan
 Love of knowledge

Charles Sanders Peirce
 Justification and truth

Diego Brancaccioz
 Beauty and practicality of science

Edmond Husserl
 Different perceptions

Francis Bacon
 Principles of conducting scientific research

Friedrich Nietzsche
 Faith and science culture

Hans-Georg Gadamer
 Dialogue, debate, and discussion

Henri Poincaré
 Beauty and practicality of science

Herbert A. Simon
 Complexities of research governance

Herbert Marcuse
 Rationalization of higher education

Immanuel Kant
 Faith and science culture
 We are the champions
 Better to stay silent
 Different perceptions

Imre Lakatos
 Beauty and practicality of science

Ian Barbour
 Science, religion, and perspective

Ilya Prigogine
 Complexities of research governance

Jürgen Habermas
 Dialogue, debate, and discussion
 Communication in science and technology

John Dewey
 University rankings
 Justification and truth

John Polkinghorne
 Science, religion, and perspective

John Willinsky
 Future of scientific publication

Karl Mannheim
 Muslims who are left behind

Karl Popper
 Fact and opinion
 Intelligence and wisdom
 Professorship
 Communication in science and technology
 Distorted journal quality
 Future of scientific publication
 Paradox of stupidity
 University rankings

 Politicians and science
 Principles of conducting scientific research
 Recipe for great scientific research

Lao Tzu
 Do not argue with foolish people

Ludwig von Bertalanffy
 Complexities of research governance

Ludwig Wittgenstein
 Philosophy without confusion

Marco J. Nathany
 Beauty and practicality of science

Max Weber
 University rankings

Michael Nielsen
 Future of scientific publication

Michael Polanyi
 Love of knowledge
 Professorship
 Manipulation of the h-index

Paul Feyerabend
 Rationalization of higher education

Peter L. Berger
 Pseudo achievement

Peter Suber
 Future of scientific publication

René Descartes
 Faith and science culture

Richard Feynman
 Beauty and practicality of science

Robert K. Merton
 Manipulation of the h-index

Sergey Arkhipov
 Beauty and practicality of science

Seyyed Hossein Nasr
 Rationalization of higher education

Søren Kierkegaard
 Dialogue, debate, and discussion
 Quality of thinking

Socrates
 Do not argue with foolish people

Stephen Jay Gould
 Faith and science culture

Thomas Aquinas
 Faith and science culture

Thomas Kuhn
 Love of knowledge
 Hat-trick in science
 Professorship
 We are the champions
 Communication in science and technology
 Contributions of social science scholars
 Distorted journal quality
 Paradox of stupidity
 Ghatherer, thinker, tinkerer and manager

Carl Sagan
 Love of knowledge

Thomas Luckmann
 Pseudo achievement

Walter Noll
 Future of scientific publication

William James
 Justification and truth