“Science” is a system of organized knowledge which attempts to model objective reality using scientific method, where as, “Technology” is the application of scientific knowledge to create tools, techniques, products, processes, methods, or systems to perform a task, or tasks.
To simplify, Science is knowledge, and technology is the application of that knowledge to achieve some desired result.
Hope I get an "A".....
You cannot have technology without science.
That's not entirely true. Consider China and their run away technology that moved forward for a few thousand years without science. As an example, if you have belly ache, then you should boil green onions sliced across the grain of the plant and drink the broth; if you have a head ache, then you should boil green onions sliced with the grain of plant and drink the broth. That is technology without science.
BTW: you get an 'A'.
Yet, we have such great technology as ...
Indeed, but the scientific method was not in it. Metallurgy works just fine by trail and error. The question that must be asked of technology is why does it work? If you know why it works, then you can build on it and develop new technologies not just happen on them.
The Romans were technicians the Greeks were scientists. The Greeks had scientific methods and technology but the Romans required and acquired technology. Cicero once remarked to a friend who was going to Alexandria for a new weapon or some other important advance that they had heard about. He said, "Get the plan but don't bother talking to those old men, they'll just talk your head off about why it works. Just use it and done with it". The Romans built a great highway system all around the Med and into Germany but the technology was defined by hydraulics developed by the Greeks. The technology was used by the Romans but why it worked was known by the Greeks.
The problem is this, when technology is more important than the science, there is a tendency that will you not know why it works you don't really know if it is working at all.
As for China, take China before the Boxer Rebellion and after. How much real progress was taking place there before the scientific method entered the picture? Without science and technology could the Chinese be on the threshold of space? Building a rocket is one thing; getting the rocket to go where you want when you want it to go there and using only what is necessary is entirely another. In other words, tell be about Chinese science and technology then and now; is there a difference?
There are philosophies of technology and there are philosophies of science.
course paper, gunpowder, vaccines, the rose bush, spaghetti, ceramics, movable type, water engineering, silk production, ship building, navigation
Yet, all of these are technologies. They may be useful but there was never the desire to determine why they worked. On the issue of vaccines, I believe that the first vaccine was for smallpox developed in 1756. 1756 is after the discovery of bacteria by Sleeken but long before the association of bacteria with disease. This was done in 1st century Europe. China became aware of the germ theory and vaccines in 1919. Before that China runs on Chinese traditional medicine that was purely technological.
I forgot earthquake science as well
I'll give you seismology and astronomy because their records show an accumulation of evidence but there were scant interpretations. I asked around about vaccination in China and found nothing. So, I'm a little worried about the cow pox and the milk-maid story from China and not the Green Mountains of Vermont.
I do believe that Arabs and Persians entered China's thinking after 800 AD as part of spreading Islam. From what I read, Jesuits were awed by the completeness and depth of astronomical records. Admittedly they came equipped with Midlevel interpretations that differed markedly from Greek science and interpretation. From what I've read recently about Greek science, it appears that Rome set science back to zero and used only the resulting technologies. They were really not interested in why something worked only that it was useful.
BTW: when I say that China was pure technology and little if any science, I am not making a slur at their abilities. I am pointing out that in China technology was, perhaps, used in its purest form.
In other words, everything that I said was wrong.
No. Everything you said is technology.
From what I can see in his bio, his interaction with Chinese science began in 1936 at a time after western influence. To be sure there were scientists active all over China at all times but that science was not in the drivers seat of thought. Technology and its practical aspects were in the drivers seat. China and Rome have this is common. I'm sure that there were those in authority in China that said the same a Cicero, 'Don't ask those old guys (scientists) they'll just talk your ear off'.
BTW: thanks for the leg up to heaven. I'll need it.
like you don't understand Chinese science.
Yet, all of this discussion illustrates the confusion between science and technology.