Social Ontology, Transient Mental Illness and Justified False Belief

“The Scientific Revolution” in high school world history textbooks (1949-2014) Yuer-Hsing Chi Heng-An Chen Department of History & College of Liberal Arts SUMMARY This study mainly investigated how the world history textbooks in high school have presented “Scientific Revolution” since the national government moved to Taiwan. That is, we looked into the changes and features of “Scientific Revolution” in high school world history textbooks. Through the development of world history education in Taiwanese high schools, the study first analyzed the curriculum guidelines of the middle school history. We found that since the abolishment of martial laws in 1987, because of the educational reform, the guidelines have gone through several changes. They turned to focus on cultivating the students’ world view and eliminating “European Centrism.” The concept of “Scientific Revolution” has become popular in historical studies since the end of WWII. The related studies nowadays have also started to review and rethink critically on this issue. In the world history textbooks of the Taiwanese high school, the term of “Scientific Revolution” was from nothing to something. In Taiwan, most of the world history textbooks adopted the traditional methods on describing “Scientific Revolution.” Centering on the scientists, the major axis is the revolution of Astronomy and scientific methods. In the future, regarding the introduction on “Scientific Revolution,” in addition to basing on traditional descriptive methods, we suggested to incorporate more reflections, and integrated more political and social backgrounds in the high school world history textbooks. In this way, the students can understand the history from different aspects, holding multiple historical views. Key words: textbooks, history education, high school education, the Scientific Revolution, world history INTRODUCTION Because of the technical improvements brought about by the new technology, the trends globalization were triggered, which forced us to cultivate more profound world view as well as the understanding and tolerance on multi-cultures. Therefore, recent education and learning of world history in high schools have been centered on cultivating macro world view as the primary learning objective. Among the world history textbooks, although the chapter of “Scientific Revolution” does not take up major printed pages, it is one of the very few chapters that lead students to understand the required scientific subjects from a historic perspective. For this reason, it has its value for investigating. The study mainly explored how the world history textbooks in high school have presented “Scientific Revolution” since the national government moved to Taiwan, and how historical studies and perspectives have influenced on the presentations. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study focused on the “Scientific Revolution” presented in the world history textbooks used by Taiwanese high schools. We investigated the textbooks published from the time that the national government moved to Taiwan to the latest version of textbooks. Because these textbooks were compiled based on the curriculum standards and guidelines set up by MOE, this research also analyzed the changes of the standards and guidelines in this years. By literature review and analysis, we collected related literature on middle school history education. Moreover, we generalized and analyzed based on the main subject of the study “Scientific Revolution” in order to learn the formation, appearance, reflections and rethought on the concept “Scientific Revolution” in the academic field. Afterward, we adopted content analysis method to analyze how “Scientific Revolution” is presented in the textbook chapter. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION After 1987, because of educational reform, the purpose of Taiwanese history education had transformed from enable students to learn the position of “Our Nation” from the learning of “Foreign Countries” to equipped students with “World View.” The content had also changed from political-history-focused to cultural-history-focused, hoping to eliminate “European Centrism” and centering on the present rather than the past. Recently, there have been less political constraints on middle school world history textbooks. However, it is still a big challenge to incorporate historical study results and multiple perspectives properly in the textbooks. “The Scientific Revolution,” from the historical perspective, indicates the period from 16th to 18th century in Europe (Especially 17th century; the year 1543 is viewed as the index of its outset.) There were revolutionary developments in the scientific theories and experiments in these years, which thoroughly changed the scientific approaches. It meant the appearance of modern science. Also, thanks to these scientists, there are tremendous changes in Europeans Universal View. The concept of the term “Scientific Revolution” was originated from Jean le Rond D’Alembert in the 18th century. It was after 1939 that Alexandre Koyre formally brought up the concept. Then, Herbert Butterfield popularized the concept, so the concept became very popular in historical field in the western world. Recently, the academics have had profound reflections and rethought on it. However, “Scientific Revolution” is still a widely-used concept in history. The early versions of curriculum guidelines and textbooks in Taiwanese high school world history did not include the issue of “Scientific Revolution.” The term of “Scientific Revolution” in Taiwanese history education could be said to be from nothing to something. The related content of “Scientific Revolution” in these textbooks that appear the most often in the attached pictures is the revolution-related figures, especially scientists. There is high reappearing and continuing rate of the revolution-related attached pictures. However, the explanations on these pictures have been changing constantly, causing the phenomenon of “one picture, multiple explanations.” Beginning from Nicolau Copernicus through Galileo Galilei,and Johannes Kepler and finally Isaac Newton represented a generalization of views. The presenting approach of traditional “Scientific Revolution”, from astronomy physics, was always included as the center of content. In addition, the inductive method by Francis Bacon and the deductive method by Rene Descartes were the must-mentioned “Scientific methods.” CONCLUSION From the “Scientific Revolution” in the middle school world history textbooks, we can see that the Taiwanese world history teaching material has been renewed with the current academic research. However, the textbooks obviously revealed “fixation.” Once appearing, many fixed terms tend to reappear in the following versions, which are difficult to change, even relive. However, it is apparent that the descriptions in the textbooks still focused too much on the contribution of “Scientific Revolution,” which might be too heroic-oriented. Recently, there is only a few reflection and rethought on “Scientific Revolution” in the academic field. So far, the related content only appeared the Han-Lin Senior High School History based on the latest 2011 curriculum guideline. In the end of the research, we gave some suggestions on the future introduction of “Scientific Revolution” in the middle school world history textbooks. From the junior high school textbooks, we can still focus on introducing traditional concepts of “Scientific Revolution,” but more clear definition, time scope and background information and other related contents should be presented. In the senior high school stage, in addition to the original contents on “Scientific Revolution,” we can discuss the scientific activities at that time through the political perspectives and social background. Also, we should incorporate some reflections and rethought by the academics in the textbook. In this way, students can not only learn the historical knowledge, but also cultivate the ability to think critically at the same time.

Notes on Contributors

The paper is a partly provocative essay edited as a humanitarian study in philosophy of science and social philosophy, reflecting on the practical, “anti-metaphysical” turn taken place since the 20th century and continuing until now. The article advocates that it is about time it to be overcome because it is the main obstacle for the further development of exact and natural sciences including mathematics therefore restoring the unity of philosophy and sciences in the dawn of modern science when the great scientists were philosophers as a necessary condition for their revolutionary achievements, and the physicists were simultaneously mathematicians not less than philosophers and even theologians as Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz were just as their predecessors, Copernicus or Galileo Galilei. The revolution in science accomplished by them needed philosophy since any scientific revolution, then necessarily growing into social, needs philosophy; and if ones wish to prevent social revolutions originating from fundamental scientific discoveries, in turn relying on the close link of sciences and philosophy, they are to cut the link at issue, and just that happened in the 20th centuries therefore implicitly heralding a “brave new world” of eternal normal science without revolutions whether scientific or social. Fukuyama’s “end of history” requires an “end of scientific history” as it is an obligatory premise, and separating sciences from philosophy is sufficient for that, though proclaimed quite otherwise: as overcoming metaphysics preventing sciences and substituting them by quasi-sciences. Particularly, that “anti-metaphysical turn” has established for science to obey society absolutely and thoroughly, obviously a condition contradicting the scientific and social revolutions in Modernity featured by the domination of science over society by the mediation of philosophy able to translate all epochal scientific discoveries as social corollaries. A special attention is paid to quantum mechanics, being the frontier of physics in the 20th century, where that anti-metaphysical turn is discernibly concentrated and may be notated by the famous slogan “Shut up and calculate!” regardless of its authorship. Just the revolutionary discoveries in physics, for example those of “dark mass” and “dark energy” or entanglement force now its rejection therefore restoring the unity of philosophy, mathematics and physics, made ever possible the establishment of modern science by its emancipation from religion, and thus and ind final analysis, from society.

As we have seen in the two previous chapters, the psychological ways of thinking about people have not just served as passive representations of human subjects, but have in fact deeply influenced how humans think and feel, and indeed influenced human subjectivity itself. Since the birth of psychology, humans have increasingly come to think about themselves in light of psychology’s concepts and categories, and their lives have become dependent on psychological technologies such as tests and therapies. Psychology is in the business of “making up people,” to use Ian Hacking’s catchy phrase (1986). One problem arising from this is sometimes referred to as the reflexive problem: Psychology “is produced by, produces, and is an instance of, its own subject matter” (Richards, 1996:5).

The paper deals with some conceptual trends in the philosophy of science of the 1980‒90s, which being evolved simultaneously with the computer revolution, make room for treating it as a revolution in mathematics. The immense and widespread popularity of Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions had made a demand for overcoming this theory, at least in some aspects, just inevitable. Two of such aspects are brought into focus in this paper. Firstly, it is the shift from theoretical to instrumental revolutions which are sometimes called “Galisonian revolutions” after Peter Galison. Secondly, it is the shift from local (“little”) to global (“big”) scientific revolutions now connected with the name of Ian Hacking; such global, transdisciplinary revolutions are at times called “Hacking-type revolutions”. The computer revolution provides a typical example of both global and instrumental revolutions. That change of accents in the post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific revolutions was closely correlated with the general tendency to treat science as far more pluralistic and transdisciplinary. That tendency is primarily associated with the so-called Stanford School; Peter Galison and Ian Hacking are often seen as its representatives. In particular, that new image of science gave no support to a clear-cut separation of mathematics from other sciences. Moreover, it has formed prerequisites for the recognition of material and technical revolutions in the history of mathematics. Especially, the computer revolution can be considered in the new framework as a revolution in mathematics par excellence.

What has been known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th, and especially the 17th century was an exclusively European phenomenon. While the social, ideological, conceptual, theological, economic, and political repercussions of the new ideas developed during the Scientific Revolution have been systematically studied within the setting of the countries where that revolution originated, only few historical works have dealt with the issues related to the introduction of these ideas to the countries in the periphery of Europe (that is, the countries of the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans, the Eastern European and the Scandinavian countries). How did the ideas of the Scientific Revolution migrate to these countries? What were the particularities of their expression in each country? What were the specific forms of resistance to these new ideas and to what extent did they display national characteristics? What were the legitimising procedures for the acceptance of the new ways of dealing with nature? Did the discourse used by the scholars for writing and discussing scientific issues share the same features as the discourse developed by their colleagues in the countries of Western Europe? Any attempt to understand the assimilation of the ideas of the Scientific Revolution in these regions and to assess the characteristics of the resistance to such an assimilation—especially during the Enlightenment— cannot omit discussion of at least some of these questions.

On “the application of science to science itself:” chemistry, instruments, and the scientific labor process

Takashi Tachibana , widely regarded as one of Japan's most prominent journalists, has written more than 30 books. Trained in French literature and philosophy, in the 1980s he began to cover scientific topics. His most recent book, Ten Billion Years Voyage , addresses scientific research in Japan today. I am a Japanese science writer. For years I have been writing about all aspects of science including neuroscience, molecular biology, evolutionary theory, x-ray astronomy, elementary particles, computer science, artificial intelligence, robotics, and space exploration. In short—to borrow Erwin Schrodinger's expression from What Is Life [*][1]—I am a man of keen longing for unified, all-embracing knowledge. Yet, since ours is an age of knowledge explosion, it is virtually impossible to know it all, or even for a reporter to cover it all. There are so many important fields in science, and their advancement is so rapid, that, like Alice's Queen of Hearts, I must run as fast as possible just to remain in place. Nearly all of my time is spent interviewing scientists in one field or another, watching their experiments, or reading their papers. Somehow I still manage at least to follow the most important scientific advancements. Yet, I have discovered that reporting what I have learned in terms that the general readership can understand is quite a different matter: It is far more difficult. In his classic work Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution , [**][2] C. P. Snow wrote that the chasm between scientists and literary intellectuals was so vast that they could not communicate with each other. For example in physics, Snow found the mid-20th century literati to be as ignorant about science as had been their Neolithic ancestors. And this situation that Snow lamented nearly four decades ago has only grown worse. The current level of basic scientific knowledge is so low that it is difficult to interest even the brightest layman or nonscience student in what modern science is doing. I border on despair at my inability to keep them interested long enough to correctly understand both a specific research project, and its aims. The chasm between scientist and nonscientist has widened to become a gulf. And it is the task of science and society to narrow that gulf through an intellectual shift of tectonic plates. Modern scientists can no longer expect to live their lives in proud isolation because most significant scientific research requires substantial funding. A fortunate few enjoy private sources—problems with benefactors are another story. But in most cases government support, that is, tax money, is required to get research started and to keep it from grinding to a halt. When especially large sums are involved, taxpayers can be inquisitive, cost-conscious, and prone to finding fault, and in a democracy they must be taken into account. But public support requires a modicum of public understanding. If a project is very expensive, such as the superconducting super collider (SSC), or involves a highly controversial issue such as when human life begins—as in the debate over the use of near-term embryos for research—the final decision will always be political. Yet political decisions are not always rational, since public emotions can easily be influenced by irrational arguments. Vagueness, anxiety, fear, or abhorrence often prevail over rational judgment, and incorrect or even hostile (it is “absurd,” “extravagant,” “useless,” or “diabolical”) commentary about certain kinds of research spreads quickly. C. P. Snow was talking mainly about intellectuals. But today the reactions of ordinary people and the mass media matter more. Since politicians are easily swayed by their perceptions of public opinion, key to promoting wise political decisions about scientific matters is a sound understanding of science among the general population and the media that feed, reinforce, and mobilize its views. Alas, that understanding is presently lacking. The figure shows scientific discoveries, beginning with the 15th century, required by the Ministry of Education of Japan to be covered in Japanese high school science textbooks. This graph makes clear that we are not teaching our children about many of the great scientific achievements of our time. Hence the average high school graduate is unlikely to know, least of all appreciate, the numerous, life-changing discoveries that have taken place in the 20th century. ![Figure][3] This graph only reflects the situation in Japan, but I suspect that there is little difference in this regard with textbooks of other countries. In most industrialized countries high school is the basic educational requirement. In Japan about one-half of high school graduates do not go on to university, so that their scientific knowledge effectively stops there. Half of the university students major in the humanities or social sciences, and the majority of those students do not take natural science courses, with the consequence that even for college graduates scientific knowledge has also effectively stopped with high school graduation. They will, of course, pick up fragmentary scientific knowledge through the mass media, but this is usually superficial in nature. Downplaying or inadequately teaching about the great innovations in science has created a situation where today's world is composed of people who might be classified according to their level of scientific knowledge on a scale ranging from Neolithic man through late-20th century man. ![Figure][3] Y. MIDORIKAWA ET AL. The 20th century has been an age of revolution in science. Quantum physics began the process by revolutionizing first physics and then all aspects of science and technology. Relativity theory followed, changing cosmology. Molecular biology fundamentally altered life science. The 20th-century revolution in science has given us a whole new way of looking at the world, vastly different from the way people in the 19th or earlier centuries saw it. Mother Nature looks different. The universe looks different. Life is different. But the changes have not been as thorough as they might have been because, while those with a more comprehensive scientific education can recognize that something important has occurred, the great majority of people do not even realize that a revolution has taken place. Understanding comes through knowledge. Only with knowledge and understanding can we, using the latest image-enhancing techniques, create novel and exciting images from both new and established data. When we look at a beautiful night sky, we may feel the same wonder and awe that our ancient ancestors felt. But with our knowledge of modern astronomy we can add things that our eyes cannot see: Imagining dark matter, gamma-ray bursts, black holes, neutron stars, or quasars as we look at the sky adds to our sense of wonder and mystery. With the development of new observatory techniques in the latter half of the 20th century, our information about the universe has exploded to an extent even greater than the information explosion brought on by Galileo. With the enormous expansion of scientific knowledge has come an increasing tendency toward specialization into ever more minute areas and an understandable, if lamentable, corresponding tendency to use time “efficiently” by shutting out up-to-date information that appears to have no direct application to one's chosen field. This has led to an often counterproductive fragmentation of scientific knowledge: A biologist may know little about physics, and an expert in the physics of condensed matter may be totally ignorant of modern astronomy. Exacerbating this are the scientific turf wars and empire building that have resulted, in the main, from keen competition for funding sources. Most nonscientists who like to think of themselves as knowledgeable about modern science really know only about technologies—and specifically those technologies considered likely to bring economic profits in the short term (“This research can strengthen our economy.” “Our future lives can be made more convenient thanks to this technology.”). This is also the mind-set of most government officials and lawmakers who consider themselves sympathetic to science and technology budget requests. Thus in countries that pride themselves on having substantial budgets for research in science and technology, most of the money is given to industry-connected technologies. Even when major funding is channeled to pure science, it usually targets an area of clear benefit to industry such as condensed-matter physics, useful for the semiconductor industry. Thus science for homo economicus and homo faber is flourishing, while science for Homo sapiens is diminishing. Given this scenario, it seems that the ascent of man has been left in the care of homo ignorantis. Within this fortress, the “Better Living Through Science” crowd is busy trying to monopolize science and technology funding and is, in the process, choking off what remains of funding for pure research. As we struggle to counter their court intrigues, we may one day wake up to find barbarians at the gate, in the form of an upsurge in “new” science—that is, not science at all—promoted by one or another fundamentalist religious or occultist group ready to lead us into a new Dark Age. How can we respond to these threats? We who understand real science need to court more allies, and this can be done by ensuring that far more people join us in that knowledge. What we must urgently do is renovate education and significantly raise the basic level of scientific knowledge, for, as C. P. Snow warned four decades ago, we must “educate ourselves or perish.” [1]: #fn-1 [2]: #fn-2 [3]: pending:yes

A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were-and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. And fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach. With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don't arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation, but that revolutions in those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of normal science, as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age. This new edition of Kuhn's essential work in the history of science includes an insightful introductory essay by Ian Hacking that clarifies terms popularized by Kuhn, including paradigm and incommensurability, and applies Kuhn's ideas to the science of today. Usefully keyed to the separate sections of the book, Hacking's essay provides important background information as well as a contemporary context. Newly designed, with an expanded index, this edition will be eagerly welcomed by the next generation of readers seeking to understand the history of our perspectives on science.

A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were-and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. And fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach. With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don't arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation, but that revolutions in those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of normal science, as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age. This new edition of Kuhn's essential work in the history of science includes an insightful introductory essay by Ian Hacking that clarifies terms popularized by Kuhn, including paradigm and incommensurability, and applies Kuhn's ideas to the science of today. Usefully keyed to the separate sections of the book, Hacking's essay provides important background information as well as a contemporary context. Newly designed, with an expanded index, this edition will be eagerly welcomed by the next generation of readers seeking to understand the history of our perspectives on science.

A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were-and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. And fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach. With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don't arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation, but that revolutions in those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of normal science, as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age. This new edition of Kuhn's essential work in the history of science includes an insightful introductory essay by Ian Hacking that clarifies terms popularized by Kuhn, including paradigm and incommensurability, and applies Kuhn's ideas to the science of today. Usefully keyed to the separate sections of the book, Hacking's essay provides important background information as well as a contemporary context. Newly designed, with an expanded index, this edition will be eagerly welcomed by the next generation of readers seeking to understand the history of our perspectives on science.

During the 'scientific revolution' that took place in the 18th century, a complex and poorly completed theory on the functioning of the nervous system, neural circulation, was to draw the attention of the European vanguards and, although it came up against a number of important obstacles, it also attempted to renew the traditional gallenic knowledge that had prevailed until then. In Spain, the field of medical knowledge was to flourish and the neurosciences presented their credentials with the introduction and development of the concept of neural circulation by the novator Martin Martinez. This work attempts to evoke that historic time and to summarise the elements that go to make up the neural or 'spirituous' circulation, as well as reviewing the figure of Martin Martinez. Neural circulation was a speculative theoretical deviation that tried, unsuccessfully, to offer a better explanation for empirical facts. In Spain, led by Martin Martinez, it was at least an attempt to modernise thinking by introducing the new ideas about neurological anatomy that were going round Europe.

Tracing the exact origins of modern science can be a difficult but rewarding pursuit. It is possible for the astute reader to follow the background of any subject through the many important surviving texts from the classical and ancient world. While empirical investigations have been described by many since the time of Aristotle and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages, the beginnings of modern science are generally accepted to have originated during the 'scientific revolution' of the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe. The scientific method is so fundamental to modern science that some philosophers consider earlier investigations as 'pre-science'. Notwithstanding this, the insight that can be gained from the study of the beginnings of a subject can prove important in the understanding of work more recently completed. As this journal undergoes an expansion in focus and nomenclature from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) into all barriers of the central nervous system (CNS), this review traces the history of both the blood-CSF and blood-brain barriers from as early as it was possible to find references, to the time when modern concepts were established at the beginning of the 20th century.

Since the mid-eighties, personality and mood have undergone vigorous surveillance and repair across new populations in the United States. While government and the psy-complexes 1 have always had a stake in promoting citizen health, it is unique that, today, State, industry, and non-governmental organisations recruit consumers to act upon their own mental health. And while citizen behaviours in public spaces have long been fodder for diagnosis, the scope of behaviours and the breadth of the surveyed population has expanded significantly over the past twenty years. How has the notion of behavioural illness been successfully spun to recruit new populations to behavioural diagnosis and repair? Why is it a reasonable proposition that our personalities might be sick, our moods ill? This essay investigates the cultural promotion of a 'script' that assumes sick moods are possible, encourages the self-assessment of risk and self-management of dysfunctional mood, and has thus helped to create a new, adjustable subject. Michel Foucault (1976, 1988) contended that in order for subjects to act upon their selves -- for example, assess themselves via the behavioural health script -- we must view the Self as a construction, a work in progress that is alterable and in need of alteration in order for psychiatric action to seem appropriate. This conception of the self constitutes an extreme theoretical shift from the early modern belief (of Rousseau or Kant) that a core soul inhabited and shaped being, or the moral self.2 Foucault (1976) insisted that subjects are 'not born but made' through formal and informal social discourses that construct knowledge of the 'normal' self. Throughout the 19th century and the modern era, as medical, juridical, and psychiatric institutions gained increasing cultural capital, the normal self became allegedly 'knowable' through science. In turn, the citizen became 'professionalised' (Funicello 1993) -- answerable to these constructed standards, or subject to what Foucault termed biopower. In order to avoid punishments wrested upon the 'deviant' such as being placed in asylum or criminalised, citizens capitulated to social norms, and thus helped the State to achieve social order. 3 While 'technologies of power' or domination determined the conduct of individuals in the premodern era, 'technologies of the self' became prominent in the modern era.4 (Foucault, 'Technologies of the Self') These, explained Foucault, permit individuals to act upon their 'bodies, souls, thoughts, conduct and ways of being' to transform them, to attain happiness, or perfection, among other things (18). Contemporary psychiatric discourses, for example, call upon citizens to transform via self-regulation, and thus lessened the State's disciplinary burden. Since the mid-twentieth century, biopsychiatry has been embraced nationally, and played a key role in propagating self-disciplining citizens. Biopsychiatric logic is viewed culturally as common sense due to a number of occurrences. The dominant media have enthusiastically celebrated so-called biotechnical successes, such as sheep cloning and the development of better drugs to treat Schizophrenia. Hype has also surrounded newer drugs to treat depression (i.e. Prozac) and anxiety (i.e. Paxil), as well as the 'cosmetic' use of antidepressants to allegedly improve personality.5 Citizens, then, are enlisted to trust in psychiatric science to repair mood dysfunction, but also to reveal the 'true' self, occluded by biologically impaired mood. Suggesting that biopsychiatry's 'knowledge' of the human brain has revealed the human condition and can repair sick selves, these discourses have helped to launch the behavioural health script into the national psyche. The successful marketing of the script was also achieved by the diagnostic philosophy encouraged by revisions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or Mental Disorders(the DSM; these renovations increased the number of affective (mood) and personality diagnoses and broadened diagnostic criteria. The new DSMs 6 institutionalised the pathologisation of common personality and mood distresses as biological or genetic disorders. The texts constitute 'knowledge' of normal personality and behaviour, and press consumers toward biotechnical tools to repair the defunct self. Ian Hacking (1995) suggests that new moral concepts emerge when old ones acquire new connotations, thereby affecting our sense of who we are. The once moral self, known through introspection, is thus transformed via biopsychiatry into a self that is constructed in accordance with scientific 'knowledge'. The State and various private industries have a stake in promoting this Sick Self script. Promoting Diagnosis of the Sick Self Employing the DSM's broad criteria, research by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), contends that a significant percentage of the population is behaviourally ill. The most recent Surgeon General report on Mental Health (from 1999) which also employed broad criteria, argues that a striking 50 million Americans are afflicted with a mental illness each year, most of which were non-major disorders affecting behaviour, personality and mood.7 Additionally, studies suggest that behavioural illness results in lost work days and increases demand for health services, thus constituting a severe financial burden to the State. Such studies consequently provide the State with ample reason to promote behavioural illness. In predicting an epidemic in behavioural illness and a huge increase in mental health service needs, the State has constructed health policy in accordance with the behavioural sickness script. Health policy embraces DSM diagnostic tools that sweep in a wide population by diagnosing risk as illness and links diagnosis with biotechnical recovery methods. Because criteria for these disorders have expanded and diagnoses have become more vague, however, over-diagnosis of the population has become common . 8 Depression, for example, is broadly defined to include moods ranging from the blues to suicidal ideation. Yet, the Sick Self script is ubiquitously embraced by NGO, industry, and State discourses, calling for consumer self-scrutiny and strongly promoting psychopharmaceuticals. These activities has been most successful; to wit: personality disorders were among the most common diagnoses of the 80's, and depression, which was a rare disorder thirty-five years ago, became the most common mental illness in the late 90's (Healy). Consumer Health Groups & Industry Promotions Health institutions and drug industries promote mood illness and market drug remedies as a means of profit maximisation. Broad spectrum diagnoses are, by definition, easy to sell to a wide population and create a vast market for recovery products. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies (each multibillion dollar industries), an expanding variety of self-help industries, consumer health web sites, and an array of psy-complex workers all have a stake in promoting the broad diagnosis of mood and behavioural disorders. 9 In so doing, consumer groups and the health and pharmaceutical industries not only encourage self-discipline (aligning themselves with State productivity goals), but create a vast, ongoing market for recovery products. Promoting Illness and Recovery So strong is the linkage between illness and recovery that pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly sells Prozac by promoting the broad notion of depression, rather than the drug itself. It does so through depression brochures (advertised on TV) and a web page that discusses depression symptoms and offers a depression quiz, instead of product information. Likewise, Psych Central, a typical informational health site, provides consumers standard DSM depression definitions and information (from the biopsychiatric-driven American Psychiatric Association (APA) or the NIMH, and liberal behavioural illness quizzes that typically over-diagnose consumers. 10The Psych Central site also lists a broad range of depression symptoms, while its FAQ link promotes the self-management of mood ailments. For example, the site directs those who believe that they are depressed and want help to contact a physician, obtain a diagnosis, and initiate antidepressant treatment. Such web sites, viewed as a whole, appear to deliver certified knowledge that a 'normal' mood exists, that mood disorders are common, and that abiding citizens should diagnosis and treat their mood ailment. Another essential component of the behavioural script is the suggestion that the modern self's mood is interminably sick. Because common mood distresses are fodder for diagnosis, the self is always at risk of illness, and requires vigilant self-scrutiny. The self is never a finished product. Moreover, mood sickness is insidious and quickly spirals from risk to full-blown disorder. 11 As such, behavioural illness requires on-going self-assessment. Finally, because mood sickness threatens social productivity and State financial solvency, a moral overtone is added to the mix -- good citizens are encouraged to treat their mood dysfunctions promptly, for the common good. The script thus constructs citizenship as a motive for behavioural self-scrutiny; as such, it can naturally recommend that individuals, rather than experts, take charge of the surveillance process. The recommendation of self-determined illness is also a sales feature of the script, appealing to the American ethic of individualism -- even, paradoxically, as the script proposes that science best directs us to our selves. Self-Managed Recovery Health institutions and industries that deploy this script recommend not only self-diagnosis, but also self-managed treatment as the ideal treatment. Health information web sites, for exa

Our galloping 20th Century Revolutions of Science and Technoculture have deep roots in Reformations and Revolutions in Science and Philosophy of 16th and 17th Centuries. These decisive recastings of relations of conscience-moral, religious, scientific-and character need to be seen in wider frames than those adopted by Max Weber in his renowned Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05). To do justice to these developments, we have to go beyond Weber in of his last essays before his death in 1920. New stress has to be given to role of revolutions of organized systems of rationales both of action and thought within processes Weber described under heading of Rationalizations. The breakthroughs to modern world and propulsive developments now in progress have less to do with spirit of capitalism and profit motive in their narrow senses than to runaway effects of dynamic fusions of by-products, not always hoped for, of two complex movements: The Reformation (and its bearings in respect of newer orientations toward self, society, and city of this world) and, The Scientific Revolution (and its consequences in way of a development of an Universal symbolic mathematical science and technology). These fusions occurred at great heats toward close of 19th Century in Europe and United States and are now at the exponential growth point. Both of these movements began as fundamental critiques of medieval integrated institutiion of Conscience-Casuistry-and Cure of Souls. In brief: The twofold changes in fundamental Moralities of Thought and Logics of Action embraced in earlier institution of conscience constitute necessary foundations of accelerated passage now in progress towards universal automation of collective intelligence in form of Brain Machines and Memory Banks.