Please explain the difference between science and technology. I have felt that the title of this board is very misleading and that somehow it is relating the two in confusion. Let me put the question in a slightly more leading way: 'can you have technology without science'; or 'can you have science without technology'? I would really like to know what the regular posters think about science and technology and this is perhaps the best way I know how to get to the issue. Please excuse this Socratic approach but please remember that I'm a college prof and don't know any better.

“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".....

Now, I'll respond to the second question:  You can have science with out technology, however, scientific knowledge without the technology to confirm findings is not much more than philosophy.   You cannot have technology without science.

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'.

well, science in early china was not the same as science today. many things came out of those early years that were developed by philosopher/scholars with an approach that may seem alien to us. But it was not just the application of technology, it was many times the application of philosophy to a problem and a technological solution that arose therefrom. The major problem we have for early chinese science is the lack of good documentation, since many texts were destroyed and scholars murdered under Chin Shi Huan, the guy who had the terra cotta warriors built. Yet, we have such great technology as advanced metallurgy, paper, movable type, use of underground methane to produce salt from underground saline, advanced hydrotechniques (rice you know), medical practices and treatments, etc., things that were also developed after Chin Dynasty when the scholars regained their rightful place in the hierarchy during the Han and after.

Needham may be a good read on some of this stuff.

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.

I am talking about chinese science way way before the boxer rebellion. As I mentioned, a lot of this stuff was developed by scholar scientists using the chinese version of the scientific method. Some of the crown jewels of chinese science are of course paper, gunpowder, vaccines, the rose bush, spaghetti, ceramics, movable type, water engineering, silk production, ship building, navigation, etc. that generally came out of the heads of scholars using a somewhat confucian approach to the problems at hand. That china went into a vast depression in the late 18th to the 19th century is more a political issue than a scientific prowess one. That there is a vast body of very clever people there who can readily apply the modern scientific method is indisputable at the moment.

besides, we need to get this board moving again. Where are all our UFO buddies?

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 think you underestimate the power of science in early china. FYI, the first psuedo vaccine for smallpox was way before Jenner and he may even have based his work on the chinese findings that infecting a person with a weakend form of smallpox would act as a preventative.

Most of the things I mentioned were not technology per se at the time, but became so through common usage. The invention of paper was a major step in the development of chinese culture and it took hundreds of years to reach Europe.

As an adjunct, Japan built heavily on Korean and Chinese science and ended up wth some pretty interesting technology as well. However, they were not top heavy with scholar/scientists as their cultural view put the warrior at the top instead of at the bottom like China. Hence you have impressive metallurgy that is difficult to copy even today, etc.  BTW, the arabs were bringing greek learning into CHina from about the 4th or 5th century, so that chinese astronomy was built on the early greek model up to the time the Jesuits proved them wrong.

Oh yeah, I forgot earthquake science as well.

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.

In other words, everything that I said was wrong.

 

      No. Everything you said is technology.

hahahahaha, please tell that to Joseph Needham (when you meet him in heaven).

Joseph Needham

 

       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.

sorry, you really do not understand Needham and his work. Kind of like you don't understand Chinese science.

like you don't understand Chinese science.

 

      Yet, all of this discussion illustrates the confusion between science and technology.