🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.folklore.science
Article #981

Re: Science vs technology

#981
From: Tero Sand
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:19
40 lines
2683 bytes
In article <1gkmcsINNhuf@emmental.csv.warwick.ac.uk> mapac@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr H M Brown) writes:
>
>
>	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.

Science is *not* really concerned about "why". It deals more with "how".

>	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 ?

Maybe, if you think science asks the question "why".

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Dec15.141959.27745@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!cust_ts
References: <1gkmcsINNhuf@emmental.csv.warwick.ac.uk>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!cust_ts
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Science vs technology
Message-ID: <1992Dec15.141959.27745@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:19:59 GMT
References: <1gkmcsINNhuf@emmental.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 40