Science versus technology

[timojin]

It's science that allows one to predict the consequences of developing and employing the technology. Technological expertise will not suffice.

I think you are trying to distinguish work done by a project manager and the workers on the project . Many time the project manager is the one who gets the funding and the project workers are the scientists.
The manager is responsible for the project , but the success of the project is accomplished by the technical personal , can be Phd , Bs, or technicians.

 

[danshawen]

You could read all of this:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Science_vs_Technology

on the subject of this thread and come away with a completely confusing idea about the similarities and differences between science and the application of science we call engineering. I think we can do better than that, so here it is:

ENGINEERING is all about the efficient and safe/useful application and management of controlled distributions of mechanical, electrical, or networking loads.

SCIENCE is all about the mostly trial and error process of determining which truths about the universe rate further study via the scientific method ("trial and error" guided by and scaffolded from previously established science), and wherever possible, quantifying those truths with instrumentation designed for the purpose of reproducing and further extension and scaffolding of an edifice of truth we self-refer to as established science. Such endeavors either use prior art and theory for such scaffolding, or else prior theories and ideas must periodically be purged and discarded in order to accommodate new science learning.

Science that does not do this impresses no one. Engineering that fails to mitigate all confounding factors of a design by the judicious application of science for testing design suitability will likewise be recognized as deficient.

Karl Popper successfully compared the scientific method to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The same analogy could be used for engineering. The only difference is that the outcome of pure science are ideas. The outcome of Engineering or technology is a product or an instrument.

I think that completely covers it.

 

[Write4U]

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

A third option is *discovery*.

 

[danshawen]

A third option is *discovery*.

Most "discoveries" by humanity are not really discoveries in the strictest sense. Columbus didn't really "discover" the American continent, nor did earlier explorers. Native Americans don't rate that as a discovery and neither should we. Discoveries in science are like that. Whatever our science "discovers" has been there long before any of us primate descendants simply noticed it.

And in the strictest sense, engineering never really "discovers" ways to manage load either. The arch and the wheel were used in nature before we ever engineered machines and structures that use them. We simply copied them, which is what primates do best. Clean nuclear energy that self-assembles and produces the energy needed to create life is all over the cosmos. Our own minds, created and molded into what they are today by the process of natural selection (also not really a "discovery") still outperform our ever more intensely networked computer systems. Computers themselves are possibly the single "novel" discovery or invention mankind has yet produced.

 

[Write4U]

Most "discoveries" by humanity are not really discoveries in the strictest sense. Columbus didn't really "discover" the American continent, nor did earlier explorers. Native Americans don't rate that as a discovery and neither should we. Discoveries in science are like that. Whatever our science "discovers" has been there long before any of us primate descendants simply noticed it.

And in the strictest sense, engineering never really "discovers" ways to manage load either. The arch and the wheel were used in nature before we ever engineered machines and structures that use them. We simply copied them, which is what primates do best. Clean nuclear energy that self-assembles and produces the energy needed to create life is all over the cosmos. Our own minds, created and molded into what they are today by the process of natural selection (also not really a "discovery") still outperform our ever more intensely networked computer systems. Computers themselves are possibly the single "novel" discovery or invention mankind has yet produced.

I am not arguing your logic, but IMO, your premise is false. From Webster

Simple Definition of discovery

• : the act of finding or learning something for the first time : the act of discovering something
• : something seen or learned for the first time : something discovered

Everything we know (as compared to an ant) is by discovery of something which was previously unknown at one time or another.
Trying to understand the properties of the discovered phenomenon is science.
Using (applying) the knowledge of the properties for practical purposes is technology.

 

[danshawen]

The Webster definition fails to qualify the term FIRST TIME. Everything an infant or a species 'discovers' is a first time. This does not render the process of discovery nor what has been discovered unique or novel in any manner that can objectively be identified as any different from the unlimited number of things it has yet to discover, does it really?

Language is a conceptual tool with more gaps and flaws than your average cracked sieve. This is only the tiniest one. Only the language we call math has more and bigger gaps in understanding.

Definition is the purview of philosophy, an area of learning both older and more flawed than science and math. All but a select few definitions are self-referential. Identify what those are, as I have, and you will gain an understanding of how little we really have to reason with.

 

[sculptor]

Archimedes; Eureka
Science and technology working together.

 

[sideshowbob]

Archimedes; Eureka
Science and technology working together.

That would be a better example if Archimedes had invented the bathtub to solve the problem.

 

[Write4U]

The Webster definition fails to qualify the term FIRST TIME. Everything an infant or a species 'discovers' is a first time. This does not render the process of discovery nor what has been discovered unique or novel in any manner that can objectively be identified as any different from the unlimited number of things it has yet to discover, does it really?

If you are a parent, you will have observed the baby's *discovery* of its hand and fingers, for the first time. I watched my daughter for days as she was experimenting with this extraordinary discovery.

I did not claim an exclusive nature to *discovery*. The point was that everything we know is ultimately a discovery, even if we weren't looking for it. We discovered that DDT does not just kill insects, but also that DDT has the unintended consequence of softening the eggshells of birds which feed on *treated* insects.

For sentient minds there is always a *first time* discovery. Ask any cosmologist, they all say that when a new equation yields consistent results, they all say that it brings a feeling of discovery. When we analyze and experiment with the *new* information and its properties, it is science; when we use it for practical purposes it's technology.

Language is a conceptual tool with more gaps and flaws than your average cracked sieve. This is only the tiniest one. Only the language we call math has more and bigger gaps in understanding.

I disagree, the mathematical function is invariable, we just have not yet discovered all the mathematical functions. But I am confident that the as yet unknown mathematical functions will be discovered *for the first time* in the future, often accidentally.
p.s. As English is my second language, I go by definitions from recognized reliable sources, such as Webster.

Definition is the purview of philosophy, an area of learning both older and more flawed than science and math. All but a select few definitions are self-referential. Identify what those are, as I have, and you will gain an understanding of how little we really have to reason with.

According to Tegmark, there are a near infinite number of mathematical events, but the underlying mathematics are relatively simple.

As I understand it, if an equation yields a result of infinity, the equation is flawed. It's a scientific no-no..

Question: Does a self-referential equation not always yield an answer of infinity?

 

[iceaura]

And in the strictest sense, engineering never really "discovers" ways to manage load either. The arch and the wheel were used in nature before we ever engineered machines and structures that use them.

Hmmm. Really? The arch, ok - the wheel, I think, is not as obvious. And the wheel/axle combination with bearings is a transcendent step. It was only recently that human beings discovered true rotation in nature - something they could have borrowed to invent a screw or propellor - and it took an electron microscope to do it.

Question: Does a self-referential equation not always yield an answer of infinity?

Only if you throw a great many different kinds of yield into the same box, and call them all "infinities" but for different reasons. An alternating 1 and -1, for example, is a peculiar thing to be calling an infinity.

 

[danshawen]

Question: Does a self-referential equation not always yield an answer of infinity?

I'm not sure I'm following. Could you give an example of a "self-referential" equation?

Any division by zero yields a result that it "not a number". After division by infinity, no math can be applied to yield a consistent answer involving numbers.

 

[danshawen]

If you are a parent, you will have observed the baby's *discovery* of its hand and fingers, for the first time. I watched my daughter for days as she was experimenting with this extraordinary discovery...

For sentient minds there is always a *first time* discovery.

Making a discovery may be personally significant, but in the overarching scheme of things, the human race is rather dull to have taken so long to work out even the most valuable scientific discoveries. This trend is likely to continue for several more millennia.

 

[Write4U]

Hmmm. Really? The arch, ok - the wheel, I think, is not as obvious. And the wheel/axle combination with bearings is a transcendent step. It was only recently that human beings discovered true rotation in nature - something they could have borrowed to invent a screw or propellor - and it took an electron microscope to do it.

Only if you throw a great many different kinds of yield into the same box, and call them all "infinities" but for different reasons. An alternating 1 and -1, for example, is a peculiar thing to be calling an infinity.

IMO, 1 = -1 is not an example of a self-referential mathematical equation or value yielding infinity. It's a false equivalency to begin with..
In an alternating system a = 1 and b = -1 is self- referential only in function, not in values.
OTOH, 1 = 1 is a self-referential equation and yields no information other than that 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 = 1, ad infinitum.

If a theory allows for self-reference in one way or another it is likely to be inconsistent because self-reference allows us to construct paradoxes, i.e. contradictions, within the theory. This applies, as we will see, to theories of sets in mathematics, theories of truth in the philosophy of language, and theories of introspection in artificial intelligence, amongst others.

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~tobo/essay.pdf

 

[Write4U]

I'm not sure I'm following. Could you give an example of a "self-referential" equation?

Any division by zero yields a result that it "not a number".

1/0 = 1 ?

After division by infinity, no math can be applied to yield a consistent answer involving numbers.

I agree, the reverse is true also. If the answer to an equation leads to = "infinity" it is also mathematically incorrect (undefined), as far as I understand theoretical physics.

One Divided By Infinity
Let's start with an interesting example.
Question: What is the value of 1/ ∞ ?

Answer: We don't know!
Why don't We know?
The simplest reason is that Infinity is not a number, it is an idea.
So 1/ ∞ is a bit like saying 1/ beauty or 1/ tall .
Maybe we could say that 1/∞ = 0, ... but that is a problem too, because if we divide 1 into infinite pieces and they end up 0 each, what happened to the 1?
In fact 1/ ∞ is known to be undefined.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits-infinity.html
.

 

[exchemist]

Hmmm. Really? The arch, ok - the wheel, I think, is not as obvious. And the wheel/axle combination with bearings is a transcendent step. It was only recently that human beings discovered true rotation in nature - something they could have borrowed to invent a screw or propellor - and it took an electron microscope to do it.

Only if you throw a great many different kinds of yield into the same box, and call them all "infinities" but for different reasons. An alternating 1 and -1, for example, is a peculiar thing to be calling an infinity.

YES! What is commonly referred to as invention of the wheel should in truth be called the invention of the bearing. That - and of course a bearing presupposes an axle, but an axle serves no purpose until you have a bearing - is what distinguishes it from a mere roller.

 

[Write4U]

YES! What is commonly referred to as invention of the wheel should in truth be called the invention of the bearing. That - and of course a bearing presupposes an axle, but an axle serves no purpose until you have a bearing - is what distinguishes it from a mere roller.

Or in the absence of a bearing, lots of grease will do for awhile also.
IMO, the "first discovery" was that round objects can roll. The Dung Beetle has used this "knowledge" to transport food to its home for millions of years, long before humans came along and observed that instead of dragging stuff, it is much easier to roll it.
Only after that discovery did technology for efficient rolling develop and the ultimate technological refinement of bearings and the spoked wheel ..

 

[exchemist]

Or in the absence of a bearing, lots of grease will do for awhile also.
IMO, the "first discovery" was that round objects can roll. The Dung Beetle has used this "knowledge" to transport food to its home for millions of years, long before humans came along and observed that instead of dragging stuff, it is much easier to roll it.
Only after that discovery did technology for efficient rolling develop and the ultimate technological refinement of bearings and the spoked wheel ..

Er, no. A bearing keeps the rolling element in position on the object being moved. That is what a wheel does that a roller does not. If you don't have a bearing, I suggest to you that you do not have a true wheel, just a more or less fancy roller.

Grease is however certainly important to make bearings carrying a significant load function well. As someone who spent his career in the lubricants business, I like to think that lubrication must have also been a part of this ancient human invention.

 

[exchemist]

duplicate deleted

 

[iceaura]

IMO, 1 = -1 is not an example of a self-referential mathematical equation or value yielding infinity. It's a false equivalency to begin with..
In an alternating system a = 1 and b = -1 is self- referential only in function, not in values.
OTOH, 1 = 1 is a self-referential equation and yields no information other than that 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 = 1, ad infinitum. http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~tobo/essay.pdf

Self-referential mathematical expressions - the word "recursion" appears frequently, equations of the second order some name them - that yield definite and repeated alternating values over time, are among the simplest and most basic of such expressions. The logic of them, from first principles, has been developed in several ways - here's one I'm fond of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form

And a comment that includes the word "infinity", for you: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/06/laws-of-form-opinion.html

 

[Write4U]

Er, no. A bearing keeps the rolling element in position on the object being moved. That is what a wheel does that a roller does not. If you don't have a bearing, I suggest to you that you do not have a true wheel, just a more or less fancy roller.

But that's modern technology. But after the invention of the axled wheel, carts had heavy wooden wheels, held in place by wood pegs.