Science and technology in history

Hello! I'm new to sciforums.

Let me push forward the following theses. What can you say about them?

1. Science is a product of collective social practice.

2. Science and technology landed in the hands of a few.

3. Bringing back science to the majority is a struggle that is long and inevitable.

-------
Thesis 2 is the reality. It's the truth since the emergence of slave societies right after hunting and gathering societies faded. It is still true (obviously) up to now.

On the other hand, thesis 1 is an absolute truth whenever society exists. Any form of knowledge or science is actually an accumulation of bits of information obtained by each member of the society through its constant interaction with nature. It is not true that science is developed only by a select population of so-called scientists or intellectuals. In older civilizations, they are known as (in our present language) advisers, wizards, etc. This elite segment of the society is not the sole source of knowledge but is mere instrument of the ruling segment to siphon the accumulated information or knowledge.

Thesis 1 lays down the justification of why the majority must rise and struggle to bring back to their own hands the control of science. Since science results from their practice (i.e. each of them contributes to the development of science), the majority have the "moral ascendancy" to get hold of science. Everyone must benefit from the comfort brought about by science--thus the inevitability in Thesis 3.

The other aspect of Thesis 3--that the struggle is long (although one may ask how long is a long struggle?)--can be construed as the essence of development of society. The entire history of world society (which may be self-similar in some respect) is actually a history of this continuing struggle. Every segment of history has this nature.
---------

Do the three theses above regarding science in history completely describe in broad strokes the existence of society?

Then, what's next after society (at least on earth) has fully developed? or will it occur in finite time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's true that science is a collective effort, but it's not really a collective effort of society as a whole. Most people only contribute to the development of science to the extent that they free scientists up from other, more mundane jobs. It's just specialization of labor. The average person doesn't have the time, inclination, or training necessary to conduct serious scientific research.

Also, if people (a single inventor, large corporation, or whatever) aren't allowed to profit from their inventions and discoveries it would remove a great deal of their incentive to research and innovate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you should define "few". As it stands, your thesis includes yourself in that number, yes? Your computer, electricity, the food you eat, your medical care, the water that you bathe in, your clothing...

Peace.

__________________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.

• -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Science and technology in history

It's true the current trend in research and development is motivated primarily by profit. But whose profit? Look at Pharmacia (formerly Monsanto who developed Agent Orange which killed forests, animals, and innocent human beings during Vietnam War), it developed Bt-corn not only because it wants increased production but also, and more importantly to them, because it wants ensured increase in profit along with increase in production.

At first look, there's nothing wrong with craving for more profit from produce. But look at the two World Wars, Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, Afghanistan War (in the name of so-called "war against terrorism") and other wars being waged to protect economic investments. These are all wars in the name of profit.

Also, it seems our world is in a dead end with no other alternative but to embrace the profit-motivated society. But is it really?

"Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only by devoting itself to society." - A. Eistein

 

The scientific advancement of society could certainly be tracked by our ability to communicate and share information. From the beginning of spoken language, the written word, the printing press, and today, the internet, our advances in science and technology have accellerated with each advance in our ability to share information with the masses.

This is due to the fact that the development of science and technology takes a relatively advanced societal structure. I think that if we were to examine all the major inventions and advances in science and technology througout history, we would find that they have all come from civilizations which have/had a highly organized social structure. It only makes sense that if a group of people can't get their act together on a societal level, they're not going to do much in the way of science and technology in terms of development or even use for that matter.

Science for the majority.........this is something that that must be done cautiously. I recall an example brought forth in an environmental issues course I took in university......a humanitarian aid organization had installed several irrigation wells and pumps in a village somewhere in africa. The pumps they used were manufactured in north america making installation and maintenance a major problem for the local peoples. The solution they arrived at was a simple pump design which could be manufactured and maintained using local resources and technology. Although the design was the result of north american engineering, it was a combination of new and old technologies brought together in a way which had never been done before.

Even more problematic, the use of technology for malice acts....(e.g. the use of waste from a nuclear power generating station to manufacture nuclear weapons)

Our "global community" is not as open as some may believe and integrating technology into less developed societies must be done cautiously and wisely to avoid uneccessary waste and failure or possible catastrophy.

I think that they describe a good chunk....however, I don't think you can exclude the fact that many advances in technology were motivated with ill intentions. Although the original theory may not have been contrived out of malice, the rapid development of the practical aspects of the theory were driven by "defence" budgets for the development of weapons (e.g. the atom bomb, biological & chemical weapons).

How can you tell if a society is "fully developed"?

 

Re: Re: Science and technology in history

Thanks for pointing that out goofyfish.

It's simply defined as the smaller percentage of the total population of the society. This has various interpretations depending on the scope of the society we are referring to. In a global sense (local if there are other societies outside earth), we are refering to the dominant sector who are in control of the world economically, politically, militarily, and culturally.

To identify who members of this sector are, just look at the regularly updated information by Fortune. You will see the oil or energy, agrochemical, communication, and other industrial giants of the world. I think it's easy to see how they dominate the world economically.

If you would scrutinize further, you will see that these giants actually have a big hand in world politics--an instrument which is necessary for them to protect their economic dominance. You may want to research on the background of major government officials in United States, Japan, Germany, and other big countries. In USA for example, look who's funding campaign activities during elections.

Also, they do this along with military strengthening. Look at the influence of major defense contractors in United States in US policies both local and foreign.

Finally, cultural maneuverings is not out of grip by these same sector. Look who's controlling mass media like film, TV, radio, print and (well) the internet. Why is it that censorship is still an issue despite claims of democracy in full bloom? What kind of culture do we get from these media nowadays? Commercialist culture is rampant. Indeed, these sector badly needs such culture in order for them to remain at the driver's seat.

That's describing it globally. We could also look at local setting in various countries. The point is that these local settings are just manifestations of what's happening globally.

I know my explanation above is not sufficient. You have to read many intelligent books on these topics to further enrich your understanding. Me, too!

Nice day!

 

What exactly are you pushing for? Do you mean to educate everyone about science, or give everyone high-tech devices, or make everyone into a scientist, or what?

 

Nothing special about science you can make the same points about any skill. Try reading or horse riding or Formula 1 driving or ...

 

What I'm actually stating is a general observation which could candidate as a theory. Science emerged simultaneously with society and its level of advancement is an indicator of the society's stage in history. Science is absent if human society too is absent. I think that's obvious.

There are skills that are present in one stage only of history. Primitive hunting for example is no longer necessary in some society and thus no longer practiced. The existence of science, on the other hand, has predated that of certain skills which include reading, writing, riding, driving, etc.

Hope I've clarified something. or you have other notion of what science is? Please share...