🚀 go-pugleaf

	I'm not certain if this is the correct newsgroup for such a discussion
 but I'm interested to hear other peoples views.
	About a week ago I was involved in an argument ( lubricated by a little
alchoholic refreshment :-)  ) about science and technology, the basic points 
discussed were as follows.
	I personally consider science to be the search for answers, trying to
discover why things work. This is an ultimately futile attempt since no 
matter what answers you arrive at the question why can still be asked.
	For example consider Newton's law of gravity, it states that two 
objects attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses, and
inversely to their distance apart. Why? Einstien says that this is because they
warp space-time around them, hence they are able to be seen to act upon each
other at a distance. Why do they distort space-time ?  and so on and so forth.
Thus while the Newton gives an excellent description of what is occurring it
still leaves a host of questions unanswered. In a sense it focuses the area of
doubt, we know why objects fall to the ground, planets orbit the sun etc IF we
know why there is this force between them.
	Technology on the other hand I consider to be the search for things 
that work. i.e. the question why is not the motivating force, tangible results 
are what is important here. So for a 'technologist' Newton's gravity is fine
since it gives us the results wanted. i.e. How to navigate to the moon, orbits
for satellites etc. 
	The question is which should motivate a modern scientist ? Are 
getting tangible results all that is necessary ? Are what I consider scientists
actually philosophers ?
	Any comments and additions to the above via e-mail or this newsgroup
would be welcome.

		Haydyn

--
UUCP:   ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!mapac     
JANET:  hmb@uk.ac.warwick.maths           INTERNET:  hmb@maths.warwick.ac.uk
Haydyn Brown, Maths Institute, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England.
                        "  Real Soon Now ... "