INTRODUCING AFRICAN SCIENCE

AuthorHouse

Contents

Foreword............................................................viiPreface.............................................................xiDedication..........................................................xxiChapter One.........................................................1Introduction........................................................1Justification for African Science...................................6Watering the Ground.................................................8Chapter Two.........................................................13The Logic of African Science........................................13Chapter Three.......................................................35Space and the natural World.........................................35Matter and Anti-matter..............................................40Energy Crisis.......................................................44Chapter Four........................................................48Nature and Scientific Truth.........................................48Space and the Sub-natural World.....................................49Chapter Five........................................................52Methods of African Science..........................................52Chapter Six.........................................................64Criteria of African Science.........................................64Chapter Seven.......................................................70African Scientific Methodology......................................70Chapter Eight.......................................................74Some Theories of African Science....................................74Chapter Nine........................................................82Some Laws of African Science........................................82Chapter Ten.........................................................88African Logic and the Principle of Deniability......................88Chapter Eleven......................................................92Schools of African Science..........................................92The Metaphysics of African Experimental Science.....................94Chapter Twelve......................................................98Explanation in African Science......................................98Ijiomah's Model of Harmony of Contraries (IMHC).....................112Asouzu's Ibuanyidanda Model (AIM)...................................115Model of Causal Explanation (MCE)...................................116Postscript: The Challenge of African Science........................117Appendix............................................................123Some Relevant Literature............................................125Index...............................................................133

Chapter One

With skepticism we notice that empiricism is not clear enough and rationalism is not deep enough, but with both, we discover that skepticism is not strong enough. If one can argue that a piece of knowledge is more empirical then he cannot argue that it is more rational. If he can argue that it is more rational then it is not the case that he can at the same time argue that it is more empirical. Thus with this dilemma, skepticism becomes weakened. Based on this, the attempt of African scientific experience is to increase the horizon of our knowledge and decrease the landscape of our doubt. Western scientists are generally shy of admitting the metaphysical in their explanations because the classical two-valued logic of the western thought system as a tool is incapable of interpreting such extended framework. However, the fact remains that the metaphysical is part of reality as much as the physical. The field forces and quantum mechanics are just good examples on one hand and on the other hand the preference of Einsteinian relativity driven physics to the absolutist Newtonian physics is a shrewd albeit an abashed acceptance that reality transcends the physical. The modest western opinion is that these things are not yet explainable which is a polite way of saying, we have dabbled into the metaphysical and our logic cannot interpret or axiomatize our hypothesis and theories any longer. This makes people like Arthur Clarke to suggest that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This is however false! The problem is due to the limitation of western classical logic which is absolutistic. J.M. Bochenski commenting on the relativity of logical systems states, "All this might be thought pure speculation on the part of logicians, of no importance for the day-to-day business of science. But that is not the case. In 1944 Reichenbach showed that quantum mechanics cannot be axiomatized without contradiction on the basis of "classical" logic (such as that of Principia Mathematica) but that it can be axiomatized straight-forwardly without contradiction in the framework of Lukasiewicz's three-valued logic (78)".

In African conception, reality consists of the physical, the non-physical as well as the union of the two. While the first two are partial forms of existence, the third is full. The three-valued trait in African thought system derives from this metaphysics and from it we obtain African logic which is three-valued in character. Chris Ijiomah in his theory of African logic tagged "harmonious monism" used it to explain healing in African science. One is healthy if there is equilibrium of his physical and non-physical aspects, and he is ill if there is disequilibrium. He is mentally retarded if the non-physical aspect dominates. If on the other hand the physical aspect dominates, such a person is useless and merely has a vegetative existence. The incantations of an African healer are therefore aimed at restoring the equilibrium of matter and spirit in the person. Andrew Uduigwomen and Chris Akpan on one hand and Kyrian Ojong on another, variously in their different works employed African logic to explain some healing processes of African orthopedics. One of such processes in healing bone dislocation or breakage would be to get a cock or a hen depending on the gender of the patient and cause similar bone injury to the chicken. As the healer massages the chicken and performs incantations, the human patient would be receiving the healing effect. In western science this would be a typical example of a no-contact force. This is however not the case in African science. There is contact! African metaphysics holds that all realities exist in a network of interconnection. What the healer does through incantations is called ontological transfer. In order to ameliorate the pains on the human patient, his non-physical aspect would be transferred to the chicken. This is accounted for in African science using the law of egwu-eji (see chapter nine). A western scientist would administer anesthetics which has some nasty side-effects. Humans have been known to die from such. For this, we say that African science not only thrives on simplicity but is a much safer practice. In massaging the chicken's joint, the physical injury is soothed, while the incantation brings back the exited spirit and attempts to restore the disequilibrium. Anyanwu and Ruch state that what African philosophy is supposed to do is to explain the principles behind our basic assumptions and thoughts. In much the same way, African logic explains the basic assumptions of African scientific practice.

In the past, there has been a debate concerning the existence of African philosophy. Currently, there is an ongoing debate on the possibility of African logic. It seem therefore, that any new organization of peculiar African or alternative brand of a given field of knowledge would follow a rigorous process of debate. Such previous endeavors it appeared amounted to letting some other cocks crow besides one. These transgressed the boundaries of reason and the custom of the salient community. For how can we have another philosophy and yet another logic besides the western philosophy and logic? What would they be called? What would they be like? What would become of the traditional pedigree of the western philosophy and logic? Indeed, what would become of us all who study, practice and follow these fields? Interestingly, the supposed apparent dilemma, when unraveled becomes a mere question of audacity which degenerates on confrontation to that of merit and then to criteria or standard. In an animal kingdom where only one cock crows, the reaction which trails the sound of another cock crow is not simply that of anger but that of shock and disbelief. The question from the onset is not on whose authority it crows but how dare the cock make a crow like sound? It is not that it has no permission to crow but that it cannot crow and must not attempt to. Even if the crow like sound is actually a crow, it is nothing but a crow like sound.

It is when the question of audacity is confronted with an accusation, properly so, that of prejudice that it quickly melts into concerns of merit and criteria. Before then, it does not matter if the only cock that crows gets worn out and falls short in its duty on all the hens. It does not matter that many hens are left unattended to; it does not matter that others are not properly attended to. The custom and what the salient community is used to is that only one cock crows!

But when audacity is forced to make way, concerns would speedily tilt towards merit and criteria. The community which opposed the existence of African philosophy; the one that opposes that of African logic as of the one that would oppose the existence of African science constructed and constructs their arguments on the foundations of merit and criteria. Do such systems of African science have the merit to be called science? Does the so-called African science meet the criteria of the scientific community? In other words, does it meet the standard of modern (western) science? If not, and which is most likely, they (the opponents) would be quick to award it a consolation tag of mythical knowledge or which is worse, magic.

It does not matter to them that the glittering western science sprung from the traditions and thought system of the western peoples and that in much the same pattern, African science springs from the traditions of African peoples. It is unlikely that they do not understand that the standard or criteria of western (modern) science need not be the same with that of African science. It is plainly and more strongly the case of one cock that crows not willing to accept that another can crow.

However, since after the tension generated from the debate concerning the existence of African philosophy plummeted, a new consciousness has arisen within the African intellectual community. This new consciousness is the cessation of worries concerning western acceptance of the African position. It does not matter any longer to the lieutenants of African position whether the opponents accept or see their logic, as many as the cocks that could crow, let them crow. It is not acceptance that makes a body of knowledge philosophy, logic or science; it is what works for a given people. The Igbo aphorism has it:

"Nku di n'mba na eghelu ha ite". "The firewood found in any nation is what cooks for the natives". This means that the solutions to a people's problems are usually found within their environment. This environment spans from tradition, religion to customary framework. Since scientific knowledge is in part a response to environmental challenges; environment to a large extent determines the structure of science. Thus, African environment like its western counterpart technically, will engender a different science from the point of their ontological and fundamental differences. The common indices however, will be that they each squares in well with the challenges of their peculiar environments.

A question may be asked: what is western science and what is African science? We may define western science as a body of organized knowledge whose pursuit is tied to the principle of empirical, testable and demonstrable protocol. Whereas African science is a body of organized knowledge concerned with enquiries into all shades of reality supported with rational explanations. The difference is that in the former, scientific enterprise is restricted to a segment of reality namely, the empirical, while in the latter, there is no such restriction. All sides of reality are covered provided the methods of enquiry offer explanations and results that are rationally tenable. Based on this we here construct a theory of African science.

This does not of course, stifle the fact that what works in the west may well work in Africa too and vice versa. Nor do we in this argument denigrate the possibility of African science bringing succor to the western peoples where western science proves less effective and vice versa. Indeed, such lacuna as noticed here and there should not draw a line between which is superior and inferior; effective and ineffective but should be the joy of our living (Asouzu 44).

Therefore, the goal of this work is not to promote one science and run down the other but to systematize and structure the African science. It is not to be disputed that the foremost challenge to doing African science at a professional level is the absence of known structure. Those who claim to practice it are scientists, priests, prophets, hypnotists, mystics and sages all at the same time. It thus, becomes difficult to separate African science from superstition or to weld the two together.

This work is a modest attempt to systematize African science and raise a standard or criteria so as to separate the scientific elements from the unscientific ones, outline its methods and processes so that its theories and laws could be discovered and mapped out. This research becomes chiefly relevant to the demands of our times when environmental and climatic problems posed by western science and further insights reveal the need to tap into the wealth of scientific discoveries of ancient Africans and build on it to complement the efforts of western science in all spheres of human life.

2. Justification for African Science

Many African scholars have attempted what 1 shall call rough description of African science; some were inadvertently led into errors because they wished to do away with metaphysics. Ozumba (2000: 20) leads this pack, he defines African science as the "African man's way of observing, systematizing, testing, confirming facts of his environment, with the aim of achieving a high level of understanding of his environment to aid him in controlling or manipulating the forces of nature to his advantage or at least to escape the heavy consequences of uncertainties which characterize natural phenomena". The point to note here is the reference to both facts and forces outside of which it would be wrong to say that Ozumba's definition captures the very essence of African science which makes it different from western science. In reaction to Ozumba, Uduigwomen and Akpan asks "if this is (the definition of African science) then what makes it different from western science since this is exactly what the western scientists also do?" (302). This criticism is tenable because some western trained African scholars usually fall into the error of supposing that whatever that must qualify as science must take a full empiricist dive. This leads them into unsuccessful and unhelpful attempts at weaning African science of its embedded metaphysics. Even Uduigwomen and Akpan still fell into such mistake in their definition of what they call modern African science by excluding metaphysics although in the body of their work they showed that it is a necessary part of African science. They define it as such activities aimed at understanding, explaining and exploiting nature for African man's use (303). Except for grammatical reconstructions, their definition is in every way identical with the one offered by Ozumba which they criticized. Asouzu (3) observes that the reason those who work on the project of systematizing African science try to strike off the metaphysical is becauseAfrican scientific experience in its original form is couched in, or anchored on the mythico-religious method: a method evaluated as the reason for the stagnation and lack of progress of African science.

But one may ask, are their no such supernaturalisms in the history of western science? Sandra Harding for example describes modern (western) science as ethno-science, suggesting it is the local knowledge system of the west but imposed on other cultures (45). Supporting this view Alozie who classified African science into functional, structural and historical (6-19) maintains that science however it is practiced is a cultural phenomenon (3-6). This means that the African scholar who wishes to systematize African science to institute it as a field of progressive research should not shy away from affirming the metaphysical as an integral part of African scientific experience. What we call science therefore should be that which describes what makes up reality in African world view. And since the metaphysical for the African is no less an aspect of reality as the physical, our science even when systematized must not turn a blind eye to it. In away, describing and explaining the metaphysical is the main distinguishing factor of African science. A science which does not include the metaphysical in its map of reality is surely not the African science.

From the foregoing, a question may be asked: what is western science and what is African science? If we define western science as a body of organized knowledge whose pursuit is tied to the principle of empirical, testable and demonstrable protocol then we may have to define African science as a body of organized knowledge concerned with enquiries into all shades of reality in African world view supported with rational explanations. The difference is that in the former, scientific enterprise is restricted to a segment of reality namely, the empirical, while in the latter, there is no such restriction. All sides of reality are covered provided the methods of enquiry offer explanations and results that are rationally tenable. Rationality is here employed to depict explanations that range from verifiability (in positivist understanding of the term) to coherency (in African logic sense of the term). Based on these explications, as we attempt to construct a theory of African science, we here offer justifications for our study.

The greatest challenge to the project of systematizing African brand of science is weaved into the questions: what is the need? What can African science offer that western science could not offer better? Answers to these two questions constitute the justification for the project on African science. We respond in three point paragraph:

There is a need to raise a science fit with African native thought system. The present author in his paper "Outline of African Logic for the Development of Thought, Science and Technology in Africa", argues conclusively that African intellectuals have not excelled in inventive and theorizing exercises because the background logic of western science is not genial to them and not necessarily as western scholars contend, that they cannot think. Hence, raising an African brand of science with African logic as its algorithmic model will offer a fair platform for African intellectuals to compete in science and technology with their counterparts in the west.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from INTRODUCING AFRICAN SCIENCEby Jonathan O. Chimakonam Copyright © 2012 by Jonathan O. Chimakonam (Ph.D). Excerpted by permission of AuthorHouse. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.