THE CHURCH AND NATIONAL STABILITY: THE ROLE OF NIGERIAN CLERGY

ELUSIYAN 'TOLULOPE FRANCIS
Since her independence in October 1, 1960, Nigeria has been wandering in the wilderness of corruption, ethnic and religious strife, poverty, insecurity, inequality and discrimination, illiteracy and religious superficiality. Every effort to direct her out of the desert and at achieving national stability has not yielded much fruits. Despair is hovering around the citizenry.
It is in the midst of this situation that the consoling and inspiring words the Council Fathers resound: “The joy and the hope, the grief and the anguish of men of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted in any way, are the joy and the hope, the grief and the anguish of the followers of Christ as well”
The above statement is the most incisive expression of the Church’s solidarity with the world. More importantly, the Church has and exercises her divine mandate and responsibility towards the establishment of a just and better world. The Church in Nigeria has made incredible efforts at bringing about that desired stability. But not much has been achieved. In the midst of this I would like to raise some rather provocative questions. Why has the Church’s effort not paid off since she can boast of having the largest Christian sect in the country? Is there a way its social doctrine can be fine-tuned? What is the best way of inculcating her faithful with the principles of her social doctrine in order to bring about national stability? And most importantly, what should be the role of the Nigeria Clergy in this regard?
Church’s Social Teachings and National Stability
National stability is multifaceted. It has several dimensions. It can be cultural, religious, economic, mental, political, physical and social. In the midst of this various components, politics has the ability and capacity to integrate and manage the others for the actualization of national stability. Politics is seen in this sense as involving the art or science of governing a political entity.
The Social Teachings of the Church are aimed at building a better society. The Church has released several documents aimed at beginning, nurturing and sustaining national growth and stability in its several dimensions. These documents border on Justice and Peace, Human Dignity and Right, Health, Education, Religious Tolerance, Moral Responsibility, Security and Economy. What is needed is the right messenger and proper delivering of the truths contained in these theoretical works. This is where the Nigeria clergy becomes of utmost relevance.
The role of the Nigeria Clergy
It is understandable that the Catholic clergy is not permitted to be involved in partisan politics. However, it has the ability to bring about national stability through “political Theology’. Political theology simply involves interpretation and transformation of society in the light of the gospel.  Pope Pius XII gives the best method of making the Church’s social doctrine effective. “I can write encyclicals, I can speak over the radio, I can write about social doctrine, but I cannot go into the factories…nor can the bishops do this, nor the priests…therefore the church needs thousands and thousands of lay militants who are representatives of the Church in their working environment.”
Against this backdrop, the formation of lay militants for effective social transformation is exactly what the clergy thus become an imperative. This formation can be in three stages.
In the first place, there is the urgent need for reorientation of the lay faithful about the relationship between the Church and Politics. They should be made to understand that the dictum, “The Church should not interfere in politics” is false and misleading. The Church involves in politics not politically but morally but the faithful are free to actively participate in political acts whose tenets are not contrary to the Christian beliefs. Also, the idea that politics is a dirty game should be refuted through proper explanation. This campaign should not be vigorously inculcated in the faithful.
Secondly, the faithful, well equipped with this mental attitude, should be challenged and encourage to venture into active politics. They need to go and effect the change and not leave politics for those who are ill equipped for it. When these faithful plunge themselves into it, the clergy must provide them with spiritual nourishment in the form of prayers, counselling, exhortations, encourage and guidance. This will boost their confidence in carrying out the necessary reforms for national stability. Emergency must be put in place in order to adequately contain the case of a straying Catholic politician.
Thirdly, the clergy must be witness to what it teach. It will be a serious setback and discouragement to the faithful if cases of discrimination, accountability and other political ideals being taught by the church is found wanting in the clergy. The world as a Pontiff once observed need more witnesses than teachers. So the clergy must be seen to do what it teaches.
Conclusion
The Church has continued to contribute to national stability. But for her efforts to be more efficient, productive and sustained, the clergy has to engage in political theology. This does not undermine their care for souls. It rather strengthens it though care should be taken to avoid extremes.

THE HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF SCIENCE: SCIENCE BETWEEN FRANCIS BACON AND ALBERT EISTEIN

ELUSIYAN 'TOLULOPE FRANCIS

INTRODUCTION
The mismatch between common representations of “science” and the miscellany of ma- terials typically studied by the historian of science is traced to a systematic ambiguity that may itself be traced to early modern Europe. In that cultural setting, natural philosophy came to be rearticulated (most famously by Francis Bacon) as involving both contemplative and practical knowledge. The resulting tension and ambiguity are illustrated by the eighteenth-century views of Buffon. In the nineteenth century, a new enterprise called “science” represents the establishment of an unstable ideology of natural knowledge that was heavily indebted to those early modern developments. The two complementary and competing elements of the ideology of modern science are accordingly described as “natural philosophy” (a discourse of contemplative knowledge) and “instrumentality” (a discourse of practical or useful knowledge; know-how). The history of science in large part concerns the story of their shifting, often mutually denying, interrelations.

Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasize the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena. Historiography of science, in contrast, often draws on the historical method sof both intellectual history and social history.The English word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers.While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibnal-Haytham, and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern scienceis often traced back to the early modern period and in particular to the scientific revolution that took place in 16th- and 17th-century Europe.

Furthermore, the historical tren or modern. Science can said to av started aroune 17th century to 20th century. This period was however characterised by different scientists, such as Francis Bacon, Albert Einstein Coprenicles Galileo, Newton and others. Also, scientific methods are considered to be so fundamental to modern science that some consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific.[1] Traditionally, historians of science have defined science sufficiently broadly to include those inquiries.[2] From the 18th century through late 20th century, the history of science, especially of the physical and biological sciences, was often presented in a progressive narrative in which true theories replaced false beliefs.

For the purpose of the work however a closer outlook sha be taken on the historical tragetory of morden science that took place within 18th century and 20th century respectively. To dazzle into the discussion, it will be fitting to take into consideration this outline which will guide the expose:

·    The history and nature of science
·    The history and rise of modern Science
·    The history of Francis Bacon and his science
·    Renaissance reformation of modern science
·    Galileo science
·    Albert Einstein and his science
·    The relevance of science
·    Evaluation
·    Conclusion

NATURE AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE
Science is a body of empirical and theoretical knowledge, produced by a global community of researchers, making use of specific techniques for the observation and explanation of real phenomena, this techne as a whole being summed up under the heading of scientific method. As such, the history of science draws on the historical methods of both intellectual history and social history.The Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century saw the inception of modern scientific methods to guide the evaluation of knowledge. This change is considered to be so fundamental that some especially philosophers of science and practicing scientists consider such earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific. Traditionally, historians of science have defined science sufficiently broadly to include those inquiry.

The scientific revolution was built upon the foundation of ancient Greek learning and science in the Middle Ages, as it had been elaborated and further developed by Roman/ Byzantine science and medieval Islamic science.[5] Some scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science.[16][17] The "Aristotelian tradition" was still an important intellectual framework in by the 17th century, although by that time natural philosophers had moved away from much of it.[4] Key scientific ideas dating back to classical antiquity had changed drastically over the years, and in many cases been discredited.[4] The ideas that remained, which were. transformed fundamentally during the scientific revolution, include:

§    Aristotle's cosmology that placed the Earth at the center of a spherical hierarchic cosmos. The terrestrial and celestial regions were made up of different elements which had different kinds of natural movement.
§    The terrestrial region, according to Aristotle, consisted of concentric spheres of the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire. All bodies naturally moved in straight lines until they reached the sphere appropriate to their elemental composition—their natural place. All other. terrestrial motions were non-natural, or violent.[18][19]
§    The celestial region was made up of the fifth element, aether, which was unchanging and moved naturally with uniform circular motion.[20] In the Aristotelian tradition, astronomical theories sought to explain the observed irregular motion of celestial objects through the combined effects of multiple uniform circular motions.[21]

Down to the 18th century, the  history of the philosophy of science began to see the first real development in a specific scientific method that would distinguish it from non-sciences. It is difficult, even now, to give a definition of science, and it is perhaps more fruitful to define what it is not, a process started by the philosopher Christian Huygens (1629 - 1695). He argued that science and mathematics were actually different fields, and could not be treated the same way. The distinction he made between the two was the idea of proof. He stated that mathematics and geometry could prove something beyond doubt, whereas science can never prove something emphatically; merely give a probability that a certain finding is true.

Huygens was the first proponent of the hypothetico- deductive method, where a scientist proposes a hypothesis and then tries to deduce the probability that it is correct, through observational and empirical observation. This built upon the work of Bacon, but also developed the idea that scientists could approach the truth by constantly refining experiments and increasing the probability of their hypothesis being correct. This period saw the first divergence of the history of the philosophy of science from metaphysical philosophy.

At this time, Newton also entered the fray, initially possessing a divergent view from Huygens, possibly because of his differing viewpoint as a mathematician. He did not advocate hypotheses, believing that any research using a hypothesis could not be scientific. Newton argued that any scientific undertaking should begin with analysis, where a scholar performed observations and experiments and then made conclusions depending upon he results. His viewpoint was christened synthesis, where these inductive conclusions should be applied to the universe as a whole, to build up a model of the universe. Newton was also an example of a scientist/philosopher who believed that the almighty was behind every process in theuniverse, and that it was too complex to be explained by physics alone.

THE HISTORY AND RISE OF MODERN SCIENCE
The scientific revolution was the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy) and chemistry transformed views of society and nature. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The scientific revolution began in Europe towards the end of the Renaissance period and continued through the late 18th century, influencing the intellectual social movement known as the Enlightenment. While its dates are disputed, the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of
the scientific revolution, and its completion is attributed to the "grand synthesis" of Newton's 1687 Principia. By the end of the 18th century, the scientific revolution had given way to the " Age of Reflection".

The concept of a scientific revolution taking place over an extended period emerged in the eighteenth century in the work of Bailly, who saw a two-stage process of sweeping
away the old and establishing the new.At the start of the 18th century, natural philosophy had not yet separated itself entirely from alchemy, folk tales, or magic, and there was no clear separation between science and religion, as the career of Newton confirms (1). Nor
was there any clear demarcation between philosophy and science. Whether the new direction in natural philosophy should base itself, following Descartes, on the Continental tradition of rationalism (deductive systems) with mathematics at the center of the inquiry or, following Bacon, on empiricism (experiment and observation) or on some appropriate combination of the two was a constant and disputatious concern. Thus, there was no consensus on how the scores of scientific theories should be evaluated, no prevailing "correct" scientific procedure.

However, those promoting new ways of thinking in science, for all their differences, had one important similarity: they were reacting against a long tradition in natural philosophy, seeking to discover a different way of understanding the. natural world. This old tradition originated with the Ancient Greeks and had been appropriated with important modifications by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages. The break with this established way of understanding the world marks the beginning of what this handbook calls the new science or modern science

Also, in the modern period of science, Francis Bacon was a. seminal figure at the time of the Scientific Revolution. In his work Novum Organum (1620) – a reference to Aristotle's Organon – Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism. Bacon's method relied on experimental histories to eliminate alternative theories.[27] Then, in 1637, René Descartes established a new framework for scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method, advocating rationalism. The writings of Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes are considered critical in the historical development of the modern scientific method, as are those of John Stuart Mill.  [28] David Hume expressed skepticism about the ability of science to determine causality and gave a definitive formulation of the problem of induction.

Logical positivism Instrumentalism became popular among physicists around. the turn of the 20th century, after which logical positivismdefined the field for several decades. Logical positivism accepts only testable statements as meaningful, rejects metaphysical interpretations, and embraces verificationism. (a set of theories of knowledge that combines logicism, empiricism, and linguistics to ground philosophy on a basis consistent with examples from the empirical sciences).  Seeking to overhaul all of philosophy and convert it to a new scientific philosophy,[29] the Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism in the late 1920s. Carl Gustav
Hempel Interpreting Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, logical positivists identified a verifiability principle or criterion of cognitive meaningfulness. From Bertrand Russell's logicism they sought reduction of mathematics to logic. They also embraced Russell's logical atomism, Ernst Mach's phenomenalism—whereby the mind knows only actual or potential sensory experience, which is the content of all sciences, whether physics or psychology—and Percy Bridgman's operationalism. Thereby, only the verifiable was scientific and cognitively meaningful, whereas theunverifiable was unscientific, cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements"—metaphysical, emotive, or such—not worthy of further review by philosophers, who were newly tasked to organize knowledge rather than develop new knowledge.

Logical positivism became famed for vigorous scientificantirealism to purge science of talk about unobservable things—including causality, mechanism, and principles— although that goal has been exaggerated[who said this?]. Still, talk of such unobservables could be allowed as metaphorical—direct observations viewed in the abstract— or at worst metaphysical or emotional. Theoretical laws would be reduced to empirical laws, while theoretical terms would garner meaning from observational terms via correspondence rules. Mathematics in physics would reduce to symbolic logic via logicism, while rational reconstruction would convert ordinary language into standardized equivalents, all networked and united by a logical syntax. A scientific theory would be stated with its method of verification, whereby a logical calculus or empirical operation could verify its falsity or truth.

SOME IMPORTANT SCIENCETISTSIN THE MODERN PHASE OF SCIENCE
The science of the mordern time cannot be complete untill the method and discoveries of the scientists that characterized the epoch are elucidated. Hence, some prominent scientists that characterise this period are:

BACON'S HISTORY AND  BACONIAN SCIENCE
Francis Bacon, who was born on 22 January 1561 and died on 9 April 1626, was an English philosopher,statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, essayist, and author. He served both as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England. After his death, he remained extremely influential through his works, especially as philosophical advocate and practitioner of the scientific method during the scientific revolution. Bacon has been called the father of empiricism.[4]

In 1620, around the time that people first began to look through microscopes, an English politician named Sir Francis Bacon developed a method for philosophers to use in weighing the truthfulness of knowledge. While Bacon agreed with medieval thinkers that humans too often erred in interpreting what their five senses perceived, he also realized that people's sensory experiences provided the best possible means of making sense of the world. Because humans could incorrectly interpret anything they saw, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, Bacon insisted that they must doubt everything before assuming its truth.

Testing hypotheses
In order to test potential truths, or hypotheses, Bacon devised a method whereby scientists set up experiments to manipulate nature, and attempt to prove their hypotheses wrong. For example, in order to test the idea that sickness came from external causes, Bacon argued that scientists should expose healthy people to outside influences such as coldness, wetness, or other sick people to discover if any of these external variables resulted in more people getting sick. Knowing that many different causes for sickness might be missed by humans who are unable or unwilling to perceive them, Bacon insisted that experiments must be consistently repeated before truth can be known: a scientist must show that patients exposed to a specific variable more frequently got sick again, and again, and again.
​
Although modern scientists have revised many of the truths subsequently adopted by Bacon and his contemporaries, we still utilize the method of proving knowledge to be true via doubt and experimentation that Bacon laid out in 1620. Bacon's philosophical work marks a very significant breakthrough for the study of the world around us, but it is important to stress that this method of investigation was not completed in a vacuum. Rather, Bacon's work should be seen as a part of a widespread cultural revolution accelerated by the rise of the printing press in the fifteenth century.

Renaissance reformation of modern science
The Renaissance was a cultural movement that profoundly affected European intellectual life in the early modern period. Beginning in Italy, and spreading to the rest of Europe by the 16th century, its influence was felt in literature, philosophy, art, music, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of intellectual inquiry. Renaissance scholars employed the humanist method in study, and searched for realism and human emotion in art.[17] Renaissance humanists such as Poggio Bracciolini sought out in Europe's monastic libraries the Latin literary, historical, and oratorical texts of Antiquity, while the Fall of Constantinople (1453) generated a wave of émigré Greek scholars bringing precious manuscripts in ancient Greek, many of which had fallen into obscurity in the West. It is in their new focus on literary and historical texts that Renaissance scholars differed so markedly from the medieval scholars of the Renaissance of the 12th century, who had focused on studying Greek and Arabic works of natural sciences, philosophy and mathematics, rather than on such cultural texts.

In the revival of neo-Platonism Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; quite the contrary, many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to it, and the
Church patronized many works of Renaissance art. However, a subtle shift took place in the way that intellectuals approached religion that was reflected in many other areas of cultural life.[18] In addition, many Greek Christian works, including the Greek New Testament, were brought back from. Byzantium to Western Europe and engaged Western
scholars for the first time since late antiquity. This new engagement with Greek Christian works, and particularly the return to the original Greek of the New Testament promoted
by humanists Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus, would help pave the way for the Protestant Reformation.

ALBERT EINSTEIN
Einstein's early work on the theory of relativity (1905) dealt only with systems or observers in uniform (unaccelerated) motion with respect to one another and is referred to as the special theory of relativity; among other results, it demonstrated that two observers moving at great speed with respect to each other will disagree about measurements of length and time intervals made in each other's systems, that the speed of light is the limiting speed of all bodies having mass, and that mass and energy are equivalent. In 1911 he asserted the equivalence of gravitation and inertia, and in 1916 he completed his mathematical formulation of a general theory of relativity that included gravitation as a determiner of the curvature of a space-time continuum. He then began work on his unified field theory, which attempts to explain gravitation, electromagnetism, and subatomic phenomena in one set of laws; the successful development of such a unified theory, however, eluded Einstein.

Photons and the Quantum Theory
In addition to the theory of relativity, Einstein is also known for his contributions to the development of the quantum theory. He postulated (1905) light quanta (photons), upon which he based his explanation of the photoelectric effect, and he developed the quantum theory of specific heat. Although he was one of the leading figures in the development of quantum theory, Einstein regarded it as only a temporarily useful structure. He reserved his main efforts for his unified field theory, feeling that when it was completed the quantization of energy and charge would be found to be a consequence of it. Einstein wished his theories to have that simplicity and beauty which he thought fitting for an interpretation of the universe and which he did not find in quantum theory.

ISAAC NEWTON SCIENCE
Newton opened with definitions and the three laws of motion now known as Newton's laws  (laws of inertia, action and reaction, and acceleration proportional to force). Book II presented Newton's new scientific philosophy which came to replace Cartesianism. Finally, Book III consisted of applications of his dynamics, including an explanation for tides and a theory of lunar motion. To test his hypothesis of universal gravitation, Newton wrote Flamsteed to ask if Saturn  had been observed to slow down upon passing Jupiter.  The surprised Flamsteed replied that an effect had indeed been observed, and it was closely predicted by the calculations Newton had provided. Newton's equations were further confirmed by observing the shape of the Earth  to be oblate spheroidal,  as Newton claimed it should be, rather than prolate spheroidal,  as claimed by the Cartesians. Newton's equations also described the motion of Moon  by successive approximations, and correctly predicted the return of Halley's Comet. Newton also correctly formulated and solved the first ever problem in the calculus of variations  which involved finding the surface of revolution which would give minimum resistance to flow (assuming a specific drag law).

Newton invented a scientific method which was truly universal in its scope. Newton presented his methodology as a set of four rules for scientific reasoning. These rules were stated in the Principia and proposed that (1) we are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, (2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes, (3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and (4) propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.

Galilio science
Italian scientist and philosopher. Galileo was a true Renaissance man, excelling at many different endeavors.Galileo described his views on dynamics  and statics  in Dialog on the Two New Sciences, which emphasized mathematics over rhetorical arguments. Galileo was one of the earliest to propose abstract dynamical theories which were ideal and would not be observed under less than ideal circumstances. Galileo observed the supernova  of 1604 and tried unsuccessfully to measure its parallax. According to Copernicus's theory, the Earth's  motion must produce a parallax, but no such parallax was found until Bessel. Galileo grew interested in the heavens, and built his own a telescope  in 1609 after the discovery of lenses  was reported from Holland. Galileo used his 30 power telescope to discover craters on the Moon,  sunspots  which rotated with the Sun, the four largest satellites of Jupiter,  and phases of Venus.  This last observation demonstrated that the Copernican theory was correct, since phases would only be observed if Venus  were always closer to the sun than to the Earth.  Galileo published his observations in Siderius Nuncius (The Starry Messenger) (1611). For some famous quotes and diagrams from Siderius Nuncius, see MacRobert (1990). A complete translation is contained in van Helden (1989).

Galileo also proposed Galilean relativity, which states that the same definitions of motion are valid everywhere. The resultant Galilean transformation  is correct for low speeds, but must be replaced by the Lorentz transformation  for relativistic speeds. Galileo also said that motion is continuous and can only be altered by the application of a force.  Galileo enunciated the law of fall (which states that distance traveled is proportional to the square of time) and the time law (which states that velocity is proportional to time). There is an apocryphal story that Galileo dropped two balls of different masses simultaneously from the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that bodies fall at the same rate.

THE RELIVANCE OF SCIENCE
Development is required in every individual to every nation in all aspects and for development to happen, science and technology go hand in hand. Basically science is known as the study of knowledge, which is made into a system and depends on analysing and understanding facts. Technology is basically the application of this scientific knowledge.

For any successful economy, particularly in today’s quest for knowledge based economies, science, technology and engineering are the basic requisites. If nations do not implement science and technology, then the chances of getting themselves developed becomes minimal and thus could be even rated as an undeveloped nation. Science and Technology is associated in all means with modernity and it is an essential tool for rapid development.

Modernization in every aspect of life is the greatest example of the implementation of science and technology in every nation. With the introduction of modern gadgets in every walk of life, life has become simple and this is possible only because of implementing science and technology together. Without having modern equipment’s in all sectors, be it in medicines, infrastructure, aviation, electricity, information technology or any other field, the advancement and benefits that we face today would not have been possible. A nation who is not able to prosper on these grounds would never be able to sustain the lives there and may have to solely depend on other nations for the basic requirements. Such is the influence of science and technology for the development of a nation.

The role that science and technology has played in improving the life conditions across the globe is vivid, but the benefit has to been harvested maximum by all countries. Science and technology has made life a lot easier and also a lot better with the advancement of medicines and analysis on diseases. Apart from the medical side, there has been remarkable development in education, communication, agriculture, industry etc. the global economic output has increased 17 folds in the 20th century. In spite of the advancements in almost all sectors, still the world is not free from hunger, disease, pollution, illiteracy and poverty. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened. By the 21st century, with the right applications of research, development, and implications of science and technology a major difference could be brought about.

EVALUATIVE CONCLUSION
The scientific revolution was extremely broad in scope, and its ramifications are difficult to fully and coherently express. Mostly though, it gave birth to rational thought, that is, the idea that everything in the natural world has a reasonable explanation, and that there are rules that govern the world. This idea has been applied to economics (laissez faire economics, in other words, ideal capitalism where the market, being supply and demand determines the value of good), politics(liberalism, which is the idea that all men are born equal and that they are only subject to the laws of nature, like gravity or any other law.), and pretty much every other human endeavor. Without this revolution our world simply would not exist as we know it.

BILBLOGRAPHY
·    Martyn Shuttleworth (Sep 4, 2009). Philosophy of Science History. Retrieved Jan 23, 2015 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/history-of- the-philosophy-of-science
·    www.citizenthought.net/Modern_Western_Philosophy.htmlpoiuy
·    Derson, F. H., 1948, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
·    Bierman, J., 1963, “Science and Society in the New Atlantis and other Renaissance Utopias”, PMLA, 78(5): 492–500.
·    Blumenberg, H., 1973, Der Prozess der theoretischen Neugierde, Frankfurt am Main.
·    Bowen, C. D., 1963 [1993], Francis Bacon. The Temper of a Man,
·    New York: Fordham University Press. First edition 1963, Boston: Little, Brown.
·    Brandt, R., 1979, “Francis Bacon, Die Idolenlehre”, in Grundprobleme der großen Philosophen. Philosophie der Neuzeit I , edited by Josef Speck. Göttingen, pp. 9–34.
·    Burtt, E. A., 1924 [1932], The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science, London. First Edition, April 1924; Second Edition (revised) January 1932; reprinted 1972
·  
·    Empiricism: The influence of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and David Hume" . Sweet Briar College. Archived from the original on 2013-07-08. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
·    Bacon, Francis (BCN573F)" . A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
·    Bacon, Francis (1 June 2003). History of Life and Death . ISBN 978-0-7661-6272-3.
·    Stanford, P. Kyle (2006). Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517408-3.
·    Laudan, Larry (1981). "A Confutation of Convergent Realism". Philosophy of Science 48: 218–249. doi:10.1086/288975 .
·    Van Fraassen, Bas (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-824424-X.
·    Winsberg, Eric (September 2006). "Models of Success Versus the Success of Models: Reliability without Truth". Synthese 152: 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11229-004-5404-6
·    Christianson, G. E. In the Presence of Creation: Isaac Newton and His Times. New York: Free Press, 1984

WHY LEADERS MUST NOT BE MASTERS: MY REFLECTIONS ON NYERERE’S CONCEPT OF UJAAMA ELUSIYAN FRANCIS ‘TOLULOPE Akinlawon Anthony triggered my reflections on the concept of Ujaama when he asked this pertinent question: do you think we can actually have a humble leader in a community? He conjectured that the possibility of a humble-human leader is very slim because the position of power is exposed to pride and exercise of authority. I have been ruminating ever since we had that discussion, though many of us understand Nyerere’sconcept of Ujaama, the more important question is the possibility of anything like that in the interplay of power, pride and fame. The word Ujaama was chosen by Julius Nyerere basically for special reasons. Firstly, it is an African word that emphasizes and connotes the “African-ness” of his policies. Secondly and more importantly, its literal meaning is “family-hood”, so that it recalls the idea of mutual involvement in the family as known in Africa. Ujaama implies a deliberate decision to grow “out of our own roots, but in a particular direction and towards a particular kind of objective: Nyerere maintained, “we cannot, unlike other continents, send rockets to the moon, but we can send rockets of love and hope to all our fellow men wherever they may be. Here we find the basic inspiration that motivated Nyerere to embark on this significant path of communal life? Primarily it is the abolition of the division between master and servant. Secondly, the restoration of respect for the African and his human dignity by eradicating fear and the habit of evading responsibility inherited from the colonial masters. Nyerere sustained that: “our aim is to remove fear from the minds of our people. Our aim is to hand over responsibility to the people to make their own decisions. Thirdly, the elimination and eradication of exploitation and oppression so that the human dignity and equality of every man become the basis of development”. In the African setting, where Ujaama exist, there is no privatilization of properties, no one monopolize things, no oppression, and in fact family hood is very crucial in Nyerere’s concept of ujaama. And it is also crucial to bear in mind that Nyerere’s objective is to make everybody a master. According to him, a true master is the one who serves the community. What Nyerere is saying is that, leadership entails humility. When a person is selected among others to lead his community, it does not mean such a person is better or more intelligent than others. A leader is not supposed to befeared. A leader is someone who is called to serve and that is the prominent aspect of Nyerere’s concept of Ujaama. In different parts of the world today, we have seen leaders who have subscribed to the autocratic system of leadership, they are not ready to serve, for them, their function is to command and rule people with their authority. Some are even ready to serve, but because of what they are made of (perhaps they are not intrinsically good themselves “what Hausa people called“kirki mutumi”) they keep on oppressing the people under them because they have forgotten that one day they shall vacate their positions either by death or by time. Also today, the increasing chasm between the poor and the rich nauseates us and pricks our consciences. Equality and human dignity are losing grounds. The law is deviated in favour of the “haves” while the poor cry endlessly. Thomas More has warned that “all laws are promulgated to this end: that every man may know his duty; and therefore the plainest and most obvious sense of the words must be put on them. To put it concisely the precepts of the law are: to live honourably, to injure no other man, to render to every man his due. Choosing a man when is ignorant of his duty illustrates intolerable foolishness and unspeakable stupidity. If you cannot open your eyes, you will cry! You will open fire with indebted weapons that the poor will pay for till theirelimination! In this chaotic situation we recall Nyerere’s call to the Church: that she must be the conscience of the society. Unless the Church, her members and organizations, express God’s love for man by involvement and leadership in constructive protest against the present condition of man, then it will become identified with injustice and persecution. If this happens, it may cause cohesion, because it will then serve no purpose comprehensible to modern man. Therefore, assemblies of the faithful must daily become more conscious of themselves as living communities of faith, liturgy and charity, especially in this season of lent, we must strive to establish in our community an order of love and justice by means of civil and apostolic action without putting aside humility in everything we do.

WHY LEADERS MUST NOT BE MASTERS: MY REFLECTIONS ON NYERERE’S CONCEPT OF UJAAMA

                                                             ELUSIYAN FRANCIS ‘TOLULOPE

Akinlawon Anthony triggered my reflections on the concept of Ujaama when he asked this pertinent question: do you think we can actually have a humble leader in a community? He conjectured that the possibility of a humble-human leader is very slim because the position of power is exposed to pride and exercise of authority. I have been ruminating ever since we had that discussion, though many of us understand Nyerere’sconcept of Ujaama, the more important question is the possibility of anything like that in the interplay of power, pride and fame.

The word Ujaama was chosen by Julius Nyerere basically for special reasons. Firstly, it is an African word that emphasizes and connotes the “African-ness” of his policies. Secondly and more importantly, its literal meaning is “family-hood”, so that it recalls the idea of mutual involvement in the family as known in Africa. Ujaama implies a deliberate decision to grow “out of our own roots, but in a particular direction and towards a particular kind of objective: Nyerere maintained, “we cannot, unlike other continents, send rockets to the moon, but we can send rockets of love and hope to all our fellow men wherever they may be. Here we find the basic inspiration that motivated Nyerere to embark on this significant path of communal life?

Primarily it is the abolition of the division between master and servant. Secondly, the restoration of respect for the African and his human dignity by eradicating fear and the habit of evading responsibility inherited from the colonial masters. Nyerere sustained that: “our aim is to remove fear from the minds of our people. Our aim is to hand over responsibility to the people to make their own decisions. Thirdly, the elimination and eradication of exploitation and oppression so that the human dignity and equality of every man become the basis of development”.

In the African setting, where Ujaama exist, there is no privatilization of properties, no one monopolize things, no oppression, and in fact family hood is very crucial in Nyerere’s concept of ujaama. And it is also crucial to bear in mind that Nyerere’s objective is to make everybody a master. According to him, a true master is the one who serves the community.

What Nyerere is saying is that, leadership entails humility. When a person is selected among others to lead his community, it does not mean such a person is better or more intelligent than others. A leader is not supposed to befeared. A leader is someone who is called to serve and that is the prominent aspect of Nyerere’s concept of Ujaama. In different parts of the world today, we have seen leaders who have subscribed to the autocratic system of leadership, they are not ready to serve, for them, their function is to command and rule people with their authority. Some are even ready to serve, but because of what they are made of (perhaps they are not intrinsically good themselves “what Hausa people called“kirki mutumi”) they keep on oppressing the people under them because they have forgotten that one day they shall vacate their positions either by death or by time.

Also today, the increasing chasm between the poor and the rich nauseates us and pricks our consciences. Equality and human dignity are losing grounds. The law is deviated in favour of the “haves” while the poor cry endlessly. Thomas More has warned that “all laws are promulgated to this end: that every man may know his duty; and therefore the plainest and most obvious sense of the words must be put on them. To put it concisely the precepts of the law are: to live honourably, to injure no other man, to render to every man his due. Choosing a man when is ignorant of his duty illustrates intolerable foolishness and unspeakable stupidity. If you cannot open your eyes, you will cry! You will open fire with indebted weapons that the poor will pay for till theirelimination! In this chaotic situation we recall Nyerere’s call to the Church: that she must be the conscience of the society.

Unless the Church, her members and organizations, express God’s love for man by involvement and leadership in constructive protest against the present condition of man, then it will become identified with injustice and persecution. If this happens, it may cause cohesion, because it will then serve no purpose comprehensible to modern man.

Therefore, assemblies of the faithful must daily become more conscious of themselves as living communities of faith, liturgy and charity, especially in this season of lent, we must strive to establish in our community an order of love and justice by means of civil and apostolic action without putting aside humility in everything we do.