Science versus technology

[Seattle]

You employ scientific principles to develop technology. This is true whether you realize that you are employing scientific principles or not. Science isn't a "thing".

Since this is the general science and technology forum rather than the general philosophy forum I'm not sure why you are posting here and I'm not clear as to your actual point?

You seem to want to raise technology above science for some reason. A religious reason is the only one that comes to mind however convoluted that may be.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ timojin:

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 : Growing food . or initial farming Is it technology or science ?

Actually that may fall under the mixed category of serendipitous + trial and error process. The serendipity may have come in when someone (especially one whose responsibility it was to sow, grow and tend the grain) had the time and experience to allow his innately evolved primitive "pattern recognition" faculty to "notice" what happens over time in different circumstances.

For example, when healthy and better tasting and/or more nutritious/larger etc grains are sown and results in better harvest and food security than when poor seeds are sown and results less good. Ancient 'farmers', crop exploiters/tenders etc, had thus a store of 'relevant memories' accumulating, and at some 'critical mass' of memories triggered the innate instinctive pattern recognition faculty; thus effectively allowing conscious comparison between what seemed to correlate to better or worse crop and harvests.

So, in my opinion, it was a combination of serendipity and trial and error process exploiting the innate and evolved faculties of the relevant human brains and minds involved in the crop and harvest activities at its earliest inception.

I hope that observation is helpful to your OP discussion, timojin. Best.

 

[timojin]

You employ scientific principles to develop technology. This is true whether you realize that you are employing scientific principles or not. Science isn't a "thing".

Since this is the general science and technology forum rather than the general philosophy forum I'm not sure why you are posting here and I'm not clear as to your actual point?

You seem to want to raise technology above science for some reason. A religious reason is the only one that comes to mind however convoluted that may be.

What does religion have to do here. Let me see if you guys What come first the EGG or the Chick ?

 

[paddoboy]

No long winded contorted fabricated answer needed. Science actually came first.
Science is the systematic ordering and gathering of knowledge by experiment and observation.
As our science improves our technology, our technology in turn improves and extends upon our science.

 

[Write4U]

The EGG came first with the formation of the first bio-molecular cell which was able to duplicate itself, long before there were any living organisms (species) at all.

 

[Write4U]

No long winded contorted fabricated answer needed. Science actually came first.
Science is the systematic ordering and gathering of knowledge by experiment and observation.
As our science improves our technology, our technology in turn improves and extends upon our science.

I agree, but give a priori role to *observation* of natural events. Second came *speculation* (such as theism and theoretical science). Third, *experimentation* (alchemy, hard science). And last, *technology* (applied science).
From that point on the sequence just repeats itself by an evolutionary process of refinement and efficiency.

A clear example would be the invention of the telescope (Hans Lippershey) which changed just about every notion we had of our naked eye observations and gave birth to cosmology (Huygens), modern science (Einstein, Bohr) and technology (Cern, Gran Telescopio Canarias).
And last but not least *space exploration*.

And of course Darwin's *Origin of Species* and the very concept and implications of the Evolutionary process..

 

[exchemist]

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.

Bad example. Science has nothing at all to say about the properties of an abstract mathematical object, such as a sphere.

Furthermore, science also takes shortcuts all the time. If it didn't, it would be able to model scarcely anything in the real world.

 

[Write4U]

Bad example. Science has nothing at all to say about the properties of an abstract mathematical object, such as a sphere.

A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball, (viz., analogous to a circular object in two dimensions).[2]
Like a circle, which geometrically is a two-dimensional object, a sphere is defined mathematically as the set of points that are all at the same distance r from a given point, but in three-dimensional space. This distance r is the radius of the ball, and the given point is the center of the mathematical ball. The longest straight line through the ball, connecting two points of the sphere, passes through the center and its length is thus twice the radius; it is a diameter of the ball.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

Furthermore, science also takes shortcuts all the time. If it didn't, it would be able to model scarcely anything in the real world.

I believe that's what I said. Perhaps I expressed it poorly. But I completely agree.

 

[exchemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

I believe that's what I said. Perhaps I expressed it poorly.

Well, yes you did rather. You implied the contrary: you contrasted science as "pure" with technology that takes "shortcuts".

 

[Write4U]

Well, yes you did rather. You implied the contrary: you contrasted science as "pure" with technology that takes "shortcuts".

OK, let me try explain what I meant. IMO, in *pure* scientific theory one cannot take shortcuts except by referring to a previously accepted theory or equation.

However *applied* science (used in the development of technology) can employ shortcuts or approximations, sometimes forced by "unknown" variables, such as in the planning, testing, and placing a Rover on the moon, which occasionally demanded *best educated guesses*, if you will.
Tegmark's clip demonstrates just such an example.

Sometimes these educated guesses and shortcuts may have unintended consequences, take Thalidomide

The Thalidomide Tragedy: Lessons for Drug Safety and Regulation

Too many shortcuts?

 

[exchemist]

OK, let me try explain what I meant. IMO, in *pure* scientific theory one cannot take shortcuts except by referring to a previously accepted theory or equation.

However *applied* science (used in the development of technology) can employ shortcuts or approximations, sometimes forced by "unknown" variables, such as in the planning, testing, and placing a Rover on the moon, which occasionally demanded *best educated guesses*, if you will.
Tegmark's clip demonstrates just such an example.

Sometimes these educated guesses and shortcuts may have unintended consequences, take Thalidomide Too many shortcuts?

What do you mean by saying "in pure scientific theory one cannot take shortcuts"? I think this is a myth. As I say, shortcuts are taken all the time, whether it be the simplification of Newtonian mechanics, or the theory of chemical bonding, or countless other examples.

 

[Write4U]

What do you mean by saying "in pure scientific theory one cannot take shortcuts"? I think this is a myth. As I say, shortcuts are taken all the time, whether it be the simplification of Newtonian mechanics, or the theory of chemical bonding, or countless other examples.

Well, why should anyone want to do this. Consider the incentive. For purpose of experiment and possible use as applied science.
The discovery of rubber was by pure accident, but mostly all scientists stand on the shoulders of those who came before. That does not negate the "common denominators" which can be found in many of these previous separate theories.

 

[exchemist]

Well, why should anyone want to do this. Consider the incentive. For purpose of experiment and possible use as applied science.
The discovery of rubber was by pure accident, but mostly all scientists stand on the shoulders of those who came before. That does not negate the "common denominators" which can be found in many of these previous separate theories.

Eh?? I can see no connection between my post and your reply. Can you explain?

 

[sideshowbob]

Let me ask you : Grooving food . or initial farming Is it technology or science ?

People went out to gather seeds to eat. They noticed that the seeds sprouted and grew near their shelters. That's science.

Then somebody decided, Hey, if we plant seeds near the shelter we don't have to go looking for them. That's technology.

 

[timojin]

People went out to gather seeds to eat. They noticed that the seeds sprouted and grew near their shelters. That's science.

Then somebody decided, Hey, if we plant seeds near the shelter we don't have to go looking for them. That's technology.

A man have a 2 kilo hammer to break some rock but the 2 kilo did not do the job , so he made himself a 10 kilo hammer , and accomplished the job . So is that common sense or scientific process ?
By your description , those primitive people were scientists . That is acceptable, So why are we at the present time making such difference in profession our present society .

 

[exchemist]

A man have a 2 kilo hammer to break some rock but the 2 kilo did not do the job , so he made himself a 10 kilo hammer , and accomplished the job . So is that common sense or scientific process ?
By your description , those primitive people were scientists . That is acceptable, So why are we at the present time making such difference in profession our present society .

Because, as with most walks of life in a sophisticated modern society, the easy stuff has almost all been done. If you consider any trade, craft or profession, as society advances you get more and more specialisation. It is pure consequence of the advance of knowledge.

 

[Seattle]

It's also because the methodology has improved. It's moved from philosophers "thinking" on how things might work to employing the scientific method with its requirements for falsification, testing, etc.

 

[paddoboy]

A man have a 2 kilo hammer to break some rock but the 2 kilo did not do the job , so he made himself a 10 kilo hammer , and accomplished the job . So is that common sense or scientific process ?
By your description , those primitive people were scientists . That is acceptable, So why are we at the present time making such difference in profession our present society .

I said previously that "Science is the systematic ordering and gathering of knowledge by experiment and observation".
That follows that it is also the systematic implementation of common sense.

 

[Write4U]

Eh?? I can see no connection between my post and your reply. Can you explain?

People went out to gather seeds to eat. They noticed that the seeds sprouted and grew near their shelters. That's science.

Then somebody decided, Hey, if we plant seeds near the shelter we don't have to go looking for them. That's technology.

A technology which was already practiced by ants and termites hundreds of millions of years ago.. Some termites never see the light of day . A termite mound employs not only agriculture inside the hive, but also a form of natural air-conditioning. The Herder ants practice husbandry and tend to herds of aphids. Actually a symbiotic relationship, where the ants actually protect their herd and milk the aphids for nectar a valuable food source.

Eh?? I can see no connection between my post and your reply. Can you explain?

Taking "shortcuts" in applied science for practical purposes is not the same as "simplification" or "refinement" of a theory to make it better for purely scientific purposes. I see a distinction here. One approach is taken for practical functional application , the other is for improvement of the theory itself.

 

[exchemist]

A technology which was already practiced by ants and termites hundreds of millions of years ago.. Some termites never see the light of day . A termite mound employs not only agriculture inside the hive, but also a form of natural air-conditioning. The Herder ants practice husbandry and tend to herds of aphids. Actually a symbiotic relationship, where the ants actually protect their herd and milk the aphids for nectar a valuable food source.

Taking "shortcuts" in applied science for practical purposes is not the same as "simplification" or "refinement" of a theory to make it better for purely scientific purposes. I see a distinction here. One approach is taken for practical functional application , the other is for improvement of the theory itself.

I see no such distinction. A theory is only useful insofar as it makes successful predictions. In many fields, "shortcuts", or simplifications, are made to rigorous theory, in order to facilitate this.

There seems to be, in the minds of some people, a myth of some kind of Aristotelian abstraction and purity in the theories of science. This may be due to modern physics. But most science is messy and deals with systems that are too complex to model with exquisite mathematical accuracy. Science is quite pragmatic about this and is happy to use imperfect models for a variety of purposes, if they work sufficiently well and are more convenient than full rigour. Science, it bears re-emphasising, is not mathematics.