Science & Technology - Conceptual & Empirical
Science explains and technology builds.
Evidence, proof, and facts are not scientific.
They are not part of the Rational Scientific Method of inquiry because they are dependent upon the limited sensory system of man and are therefore considered opinion. Opinions are fine, and as the saying (partly) goes, “everyone has one.” We reserve our opinions for after the hypothesis and theory is presented and it is called the conclusion (which is ours alone).
What is technology? We often see the phrase, “Science & Technology.” Technology is empirical, evidence based, and mostly trial and error. The difference is often debated. A general consensus might be that science and technology are interdependent but separate endeavors.
From Ask.com we find the following:
“Science is a way of practicing knowledge, as well as the knowledge itself, whereas technology is the application of science, particularly to industrial or commercial objectives. Technology can also be defined as the scientific methods and materials used to achieve industrial objectives.”
Before we continue, let’s look at some common definitions.
According to Dictionary.reference.com, science is:
“a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”
Knowledge, facts, and truth are the opinions of man, and as such, have no place in science or technology. That is part of religion and philosophy.
Science explains and technology builds.
One would think that if science and technology are interdependent yet separate that there would be a friendly relationship and a clear division of labor between the two. Yet this is not the case. Scientists, engineers, social scientists, philosophers, historians, policy makers, and the public all have self interests. Because of this, government and other agencies, like NASA, have Science and Technology departments just to help solve related issues and coordinate resources and development across the disciplinary boundaries.
The rivalry is one issue and the focus has been mostly on that. Just take a look at all the scholarly articles devoted to it. As an electrical engineer, and later a software and then hardware engineer, it was obvious to me who did the work and who got the credit.
Wiki Answers tell us about the relationship between science and technology:
“Science discovers fundamental information about how the universe works. Technology is the practical application of that information, or knowledge. A computer is an example of technology; in order to invent one, it is necessary to know a lot of fundamental science. Science sets the stage for technology, which produces useful devices. There would be no laptops without the fundamental discoveries of science.”
We hear all the time that science is responsible for this and that. I've been told that if not for Quantum Mechanics the transistor would not have been invented. If not for relativity GPS would not have been possible and so forth. This is not the case as we shall see.
Many great discoveries had nothing to do with the “science” behind it.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." - Louis Pasteur
Are we to believe that serendipity is part of the scientific method? We are told that it is:
"Serendipity means a happy accident" or "pleasant surprise"; a fortunate mistake...Indeed, the scientific method, and the scientists themselves, can be prepared in many other ways to harness luck and make discoveries." - WIKI
Charles Goodyear accidentally spilled a mixture of rubber, sulfur, and lead onto a hot stove creating vulcanized rubber.
The engineer Wilson Greatbatch used the wrong value resistor and the circuit he was working on pulsed like a heart beat giving him the idea for the pace maker.
Alfred Nobel accidentally discovered dynamite when he dropped Nitroglycerin in sawdust. The sawdust soaked it up, stabilizing it and making it useful as dynamite.
Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin a day after failing to clean up his work station.
Benedictus dropped a flask that had contained a liquid plastic that had evaporated. The flask didn't shatter and safety glass was the result.
While trying to make artificial quinine, Perkins made the first synthetic dye superior to any of the natural dyes available at the timeChemistry quickly became a money making enterprise. Later a German bacteriologist by the name of Paul Ehrlich, used the dyes in a different manner. He used them in immunology and chemotherapy.
Potato chips were an accident as were popsicles, ice cream cones, and Coca Cola. Smart dust (silicon chips) used for sensors was an accident as well.
Saccharin was discovered because a chemist didn't wash his hands and chemicals got on his wife's dinner rolls.
Percy Spencer was using a vacuum tube and aimed it at various items in the lab and accidentally melted a chocolate bar in his pocket. The beginning of the first microwave oven!
Wilhelm Roentgen was tinkering with a device when he noticed a fluorescent light flickering. He started putting various objects in front of it and discovered he could see the bones of his hands. The X-ray machine had its beginning!
Later, when experimenting with X-rays, Becquerel accidentally exposed a photographic plate with a uranium rock and then with the help of the Curies discovered radioactivity.
Chemist Leo Hendrik Baekeland, trying to make a shellac alternative, produced a material in one of his experiments called Bakelite. He was going to use it to make phonograph records but found it could be used for many other things. Plastic is derived from it today.
Lysergic acid was absorbed through the skin of Albert Hofmann and he got a buzz. Timothy Leary was happy about that because LSD came about because of it!
Phizer discovered that a drug they were using in a clinical trial for heart conditions, although useless for that purpose, was great for erectile dysfunction. Viagra was born!
Smallpox vaccination, clinical use of insulin for diabetes, and the Pap smear...all a result of serendipity. As were post it notes, Cellophane, and Velcro. So were Play-Doh, Stainless Steel, the Ink Jet Printer, and Vaseline ...all a result of serendipity.
"The seeds of great discoveries are constantly floating around us, but they only take root in minds well prepared to receive them." - Joseph Henry
Thank God for open minds and thank God for Viagra and Vaseline!
While these are all good examples of accidents, luck, and happenstance meeting up with open minded, observant men and women, it points to something very important. It points to the difference between science and technology, conceptualizing and observing.
The Free Dictionary tells us that conceptual is relating to mental conception and gives a use as "conceptual discussions that antedated development of the new product."
The same source defines empirical as:
“Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.”
The second definition is revealing:
“Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.”
Does science depend on accidents, happenstance, or serendipity? Does empiricism depend on theory? No!
Rational Science takes this a step further. Empiricism is extra-scientific. That is, it is NOT part of the Rational Scientific Method of inquiry. Why? Because the human sensory system is limited but the ability to conceive is not.
It is technology with its empiricism, experimentation, and its trial and error that is responsible for our so-called scientific advancements. Science played a very minor role.
The mathematical theorist, for instance, may believe that their calculations confirm, and GPS proves, Relativity. They therefore take credit for our GPS system. The calculus only confirms that cesium atoms are being stressed differently as the satellite orbits the earth than the cesium atoms in the clocks at the ground stations. The atoms were stressed. Time was not warped as proposed by the ridiculous theory of relativity!
The transistor was discovered in Bell Labs by engineers tinkering with components and not because of some theory or theories relating to the ridiculous notions of Quantum Mechanics!
The purpose of science is to explain and that depends on conceptualization. The usefulness of technology is in designing and building. This is accomplished by experimentation, testing, and trial and error which depend on observation.
Clearly, science and technology are two different things altogether. The problem with modern scientific method is that they confuse the two. Scientists today confuse nouns with verbs, concepts with objects, hypothesis with theory, and science with technology.
