Science versus technology

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by timojin, Aug 31, 2016.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    Technology is continuously evolving science is borrowing the knowhow from technology to advance
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    Technology is science. Your statement makes no sense.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I'll say it a different way: technology is applied science, so the statement in the OP is circular.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    Before guns were made there was a aspear . after the spear , bow and arrow , were made . The word science appeared in about year 1300 AD
     
  8. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065

    Why not say Science is the bastard child of technology ?
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    It's the opposite of course. Science drives technology. The science of gunpowder preceded the invention of the gun.
     
    wegs, sideshowbob and Russ_Watters like this.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    Because that is not what Russ is saying. At all.

    He is saying, rather, that technology is the child (no need for the pejorative epithet "bastard", so far as I can see) of science.

    But of course it is the case that the observations that advance science rely on technology, to a greater or lesser extent, so the two are interdependent. If that was your point.
     
    Boris2 likes this.
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    You have just beaten me to the punch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Because that would be stupid. But you can say it if you want.
     
    paddoboy and exchemist like this.
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,631
    When solving a problem, one must first find a solution (science) before one can apply the solution (technology).
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    True, though it is worth noting that scientific thought processes, while a component of some peoples' makeup, had to be formalized to separate them (though they still overlap). Prior to that, they were a variable muddy mixture that also included philosophy.
     
  15. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,287
    You dont just see sharks with computers.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    .....and "technology" does not mean "computers".
     
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    Before gun powder there was sulfur and there was unfinished burning wood ( charcoal ) . you mix them together you get a nice flame and if you keep it in a closed container you might get a boom .
    Science comes after you observe and than try to figured out why does it happen .
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,631
    Right. Still before implementation in a technology though.
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,851
    Somebody tried poking an animal with a pointed stick instead of strangling it by hand. That's science.

    When he discovered that it worked pretty well, he started making spears on purpose. That's technology.
     
    Russ_Watters and DaveC426913 like this.
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    A primitive form of science. But you need saltpeter, which is found in urine. A strange congress indeed.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,616
    Moreover, technology can never be as exact as science. As explained in the Tegmark clip, technology often takes shortcuts from the complete and pure scientific theory, as long as it is functional.
    Example: Science can describe the properties of a purely symmetrical sphere, but on earth it is impossible to make a perfect spherical object, such as a ball bearing, but we can come close enough to be functional.
     
  22. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ timojin:

    I suspect you are conflating two distinct processes. Even in the most primitive brain, and whatever 'mind' consequentially evolved within its workings, there existed a pattern recognition evolutionary product that was instinctively useful in spotting prey or predators. That same primitive mind also often came serendipitously across a pattern of 'things' in inanimate forms and processes going on around them in their local environment.

    So serendipitous 'recognition' of something that happens or exists and was immediately recognized as beneficial in effect to an organism's survival, may be immediately exploited as a low level understanding based 'technology' by even that primitive mind (evidence the intelligent recognition and problem solving faculties exhibited in many birds and animals working purely from evolved instinct and experience; also the stick/feces throwing behavior of chimpanzees etc).

    That serendipitous and instinctive naturally evolved process is entirely different from the higher level understanding based logical and specifically directed process developed by us humans known as natural philosophy and then in its later methodological incarnation as "objective science method". The science process starts with a conscious observation of a pattern/phenomenon, followed by a conscious application of logics and tests of whatever kind to make sense of the observation in higher level mind construct terms which human beings work with to survive and understand the world around them.

    So you see, timojin, technology is of two kinds regarding provenance and immediacy of utility/implementations. The first kind, ie primitive technology type and process, even though that came first in our own evolutionary history, is nevertheless qualitatively and methodologically many levels lower in logical and directed inputs and manipulations than the science and technology nexus and methodology we humans have developed to the current state of the art in both the attainment of scientific insights and the deliberate application of those insights to purposeful longterm process of developing technological inventions.

    I hope this has been of use to your OP discussion, timojin. Best.
     
  23. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    You are attempting to justify that science is some thing higher intellect, Let me put it this way. The Primitive man hat to satisfy his hungry belly so he developed technology . After the primitive man had plenty of food and time then he started philosophy and ask questions as WHY things work .
    Let me ask you : Grooving food . or initial farming Is it technology or science ?
     

Share This Page