Democracy in Crisis

What has been happening in the Philippines when Pres. Duterte sits in power is a phenomenon that calls each citizen to reflect on the idea of democracy as a system of government and a way of life.  War on drugs is the center stage of controversies in Pres. Duterte’s campaign.  To date, more than 2000 drug-related deaths of personalities allegedly connected to illegal drug trade. 

For Pres. Duterte, it’s a matter of principle to sustain his campaign against drugs.  Illegal drug is a menace to Philippine society, especially to the young who are addicted to it.  It will make the young generation unproductive and dangerous to public safety. Likewise, it will cost the government for their rehabilitation and prepare them again to be part to the society’s mainstream.  It’s a matter of principle because, by hook or by crook, Duterte’s administration is resolved to crack down the drug trade and the syndicate behind it to its bitter end.  Pres. Duterte is unstymied even biting oppositions are stoned against him by different groups advocating human rights.   

This controversy raises concern over human rights abuses and violations.  Likewise, this concern poses some kind of crisis the way Duterte’s administration observes democratic ideals embodied in the constitutional mandate of his office.  This crisis lurks between the political power legitimized in the office of the President and human rights embodied in the New Constitution. 

As the Chief Executive of the land, Duterte is mandated to execute the laws of the land such as “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” and “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”  If he fails to fulfil this mandate, then he is negligent of his duties as the Chief Executive.  To fulfil his mandate, Duterte shall mobilize all elements of the PNP and AFP.  He even “encouraged” armed forces of the NPA (mentioned in one of his TV appearances) and local elected officials to apprehend any activities related to drug use and trade.  On the other hand, in the process of enforcing the laws, questions regarding violations of constitutional rights of suspects are popping out since some lapses in police operation are observed, as critics would claim, like absence of any of these rights: due process, right to be heard, or right to have a counsel.

President Duterte has the political will to crackdown illegal drugs.  But the question is, “Is his political will too much so as to intrude the safeguards of human rights embodied in the constitution?”  Or, shall we ask, “Does the idea of human rights become the “constitutional shield” of those personalities behind the drug trade?”  Because of this “constitutional shield,” these drug personalities have immunity in the persecutions. 

All these questions test the reliability of the democratic form of government in the Philippines.  Does democracy legitimize the power of the government?  Or, Does democracy legitimize the safeguards of human rights?

What is Real Knowledge?

This article is still in connection with my last article posted online dated January 27, 2017.  My conclusion in that article is that no one can monopolize knowledge.  This conclusion implies an epistemological question, "What is, then, a real knowledge?"  This is what I like to explore in this article, if nobody can take all what it takes in inquiry, then who'll declare that one has everything to take.  To put it simply, if nobody has the authority to say whether one is correct or not, then what is the criterion of knowledge?  To further our question, we ask, is real knowledge tenable?

It's perhaps liberating to know that nobody can monopolize knowledge.  No one will tell another researcher that he's wrong, or criticize his methodology in research, or criticize his findings, and more.  One is free to do what he wants in research.  He's free of worries regarding his topic to research.  He's free of worries regarding what technicalities to follow in research.  He's free of worries of his writing skills.  He's free of worries whether he's correct or not of his findings.  It's just like saying, "no one commits mistake; so everybody's right."  Yet, we can't go on with things like this.  It's as good as relativism.  Knowledge is relative to each and every inquirer/ researcher.  Knowledge is as good as anyone else, which at the same time, is as worse as anything else.  In consequence, it's not knowledge but merely a capricious belief, which is not worth having nor defending for.

This dilemma creates a paradoxical kind of reality.  It's liberating yet disturbing -liberating, in the sense that a researcher doesn't care of the right research methods and the right language, and disturbing, in the sense that a researcher writes nothing but merely a piece of literary work and nothing outside of it.

This set of questions is not actually novel.  This has been asked and answered by different philosophers in the past like Plato, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, among others.  Yet, we find no common answers among them.  In fact, their answers are conflicting and opposing.

In conclusion, the theory of falsifiability poses some troublesome issues regarding what we know with certainty.  Its main concern is that knowledge is untenable even if it is scientific.

Research-based Knowledge is Falsifiable

In the last article dated January 25, 2017, I’ve shown that any scientific knowledge is falsifiable.  For some, this is a disheartening fact.  For decades, science is considered infallible in its claim of knowledge.  It cannot be mistaken in finding knowledge since it is founded on experience.  Experiential knowledge is verifiable.  With right discipline and attitude, a scientist can process the whole field of experience and extract knowledge from it.  Thus, real knowledge can only be gained through experience, not through rational demonstration.  This belief has been defended by a number of scientists and philosophers, like empiricists, positivists, Kantians, among others.

Research, as understood today, claims to be scientific.  Researchers have high level of confidence similar to that of scientists’.  Research-based knowledge is better than any other forms of knowledge, especially one gained through pure reason.  Reliance on research-based knowledge is now “the rule of thumb” in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) wishing to utilize research-based instructions.  Research is considered one of the pillars of HEIs, besides instruction and community extension.  In some practices, HEI faculty are snubbed or not promoted if they are not able to publish research studies.  If a faculty has not published or able to produce research studies, he/she has to swift to other profession.   

It's undeniably true that research has played a big role in successes in industries, in science, and even in interplanetary missions.  Missions in Mars and in other planets have been successful because of constant tests and experiments of unmanned rovers in varying circumstances expected to be encountered in the missions.  Research has made advances in technology, advances in psychology, in politics, in economics, and in other fields of human interest.  The research discipline itself has advanced to its heights with the utilization of statistics.  Researchers themselves have made advances too in their discipline and attitude in conducting research.  Researchers are now becoming too objective, too specialized, and too productive.

Yet, the challenge is still there.  Research-based knowledge can still be falsifiable.  Even if this knowledge is made justified by hard evidence, gathered by well-known experts, and gathered by best-possible methodology, yet we have to accept the fact that it is still under the principle of falsifiability.  It can still be contested.  Counter evidence may falsify it.  There is only one implication of this fact: no one has the monopoly of knowledge.   

Scientific Knowledge is Falsifiable

Science prided itself of being the sole arbiter of true knowledge.  It started when many existing beliefs held by the Church were challenged by newly scientific truths discovered by scientists during the Scientific Revolution.  For example, Church authorities in Medieval times propounded the idea that earth is the center of the universe.  This was also premised in the ideas that God created the universe; man finds favour in him of all other things; so earth should be at the center in the scheme of things as man’s dwelling place.  All these strings of beliefs were somehow weaved into one system with some elements of religious beliefs through speculation without due regard to their empirical contents.  Thus, when Copernicus was able to establish the fact –with the help of new invented technology like telescope, that the sun is the center of the universe, there was a gradual change in conviction that knowledge becomes more reliable if founded in science through observation.  What is derived from speculation or faith is considered spurious; what is derived from observation is considered reliable and true. 

From then on, the rule of the day is science and its objectivity in arriving truth.  Eventually, science has become proud to be the new arbiter of truth replacing the olden days of the church.  Science has claimed infallible in its newly-found knowledge.  It cannot get wrong or mistaken of its newly-found knowledge.  Its knowledge is grounded on empirical evidence gathered through experimentation.  It has even become proud that scientific knowledge is better than any knowledge gained from speculation or faith.

However, observation alone is not enough to establish a true knowledge.  Scientists are very aware of this.  Thus, as an observer or scientist, he has to develop in him a discipline and an attitude, which are unique among scientists.  His discipline consists of being neutral in his investigation.  His attitude consists of being keen in finding the right problem, in formulating the right hypothesis, in finding sufficient evidence to support his hypothesis, and making objective conclusion.  Without his scientific discipline and attitude, his observation and finding are unreliable.  Thus, science is not only about finding objective truth but also a matter of personal discipline and an art. 

In all of its success, science has never been in its pedestal without various challenges.  One persistent challenge it encountered is its claim of infallibility –that is, science can’t get wrong of its truth-claims.  To date, there are two prominent thinkers who challenged its infallibility, namely: Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.  Kuhn’s treatment is interesting yet I shall dispense myself of not discussing it here.

Popper is famous of the “principle of falsifiability.”  In so far as science speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable.  This principle applies to any field of science such as in medical science, in physical science, in biological science, in astronomical science, and among others.  In medical science, for example, scientists claim that condom can protect users from contacting or transmitting HIV/AIDS virus or STDs but, for Popper, it must be falsifiable.  Medical scientists can get wrong of this claim.  In astronomical science, astronomers claim that there are only 8 planets in the solar system, again it is falsifiable.  Astronomers can get wrong.  All forms of scientific knowledge are practically falsifiable.  The point, however, is not that truth is untenable.  Scientific knowledge can be made certain but its process of arriving it, which is through inductive reasoning, is not that sound to establish a knowledge that can no longer be put to doubt.  Induction gives us only a probable conclusion. 

Nowadays, many experts like researchers will try to convince us that in every undertaking we take, we have to pay attention to any scientific knowledge.  Expressions like “research-based” education, “research-based” instruction, “research-based” curriculum, and so on are manifestations that science unlike any other fields gives us satisfaction to our insatiable desire for truth.

In conclusion, science is dethroned of its crowning glory as the sole arbiter of knowledge.  Scientists are dethroned too of their crowns as masters of “scientific” craft.  Whether one is an expert or not, he/she has the right to claim what he/she believes is true.