Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Which comes first: Science or Technology?

royalleopardroyalleopard AmsterdamPosts: 3Member

More examples of technology happening with out the knowledge of science can be found like mummification thousands of years ago withe the Ancient Egyptians and how steel pans where made by persons of no harmonic scientific knowledge in the Caribbean.

But how does one come about supporting scientific laws but through the use of technology....

I would like some examples of case where science as occurred without any use of technology to support it.

«1

Comments

  • dragon_koidragon_koi Hong KongPosts: 6Member

    Technology came first. It's a fact. Just like what you've stated, "More examples of technology happening with out the knowledge of science can be found like mummification thousands of years ago withe the Ancient Egyptians and how steel pans where made by persons of no harmonic scientific knowledge in the Caribbean. But how does one come about supporting scientific laws but through the use of technology....i would like some examples of case where science as occurred without any use of technology to support it."

    Technology would still develop WITHOUT science. On the other hand, science would have a hard time developing without technology. In the earliest years, cavemen have their own technology. Spears = technology. Science did not exist in those times. Cavemen did not research how to make a spear, it's practicality. If you would search the meaning of technology, it's a method. image

  • olliemasaolliemasa ParisPosts: 7Member

    Technology came first. It's a fact. Just like what the other stated, "More examples of technology happening with out the knowledge of science can be found like mummification thousands of years ago withe the Ancient Egyptians and how steel pans where made by persons of no harmonic scientific knowledge in the Caribbean. But how does one come about supporting scientific laws but through the use of technology....i would like some examples of case where science as occurred without any use of technology to support it."

    Technology would still develop WITHOUT science. On the other hand, science would have a hard time developing without technology. In the earliest years, cavemen have their own technology. Spears = technology. Science did not exist in those times. Cavemen did not research how to make a spear, it's practicality. If you would search the meaning of technology, it's a method.

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    It is more a question of semantics, but technically I guess it would have to be technology first, as the most basic technologies are discovered and utilized without the understanding of the science behind them.

    For example: the decision by paleolithic man to hand-pick stones ideally shaped for striking one another (presumably what was done before shaping was discovered), specifically for the purpose of starting a fire, counts as a technology.  Although it is possible that they understood the science behind why striking a particular type of stone (flint) gives off a spark, or why that spark can in turn ignite a particular type of fuel (kindle), it is highly improbable.  That wouldn't be discovered for another few hundred thousand (or million, depending on when fire was discovered) years of human evolution.

  • GTwanderGTwander San Diego, CAPosts: 6,035Member

    Originally posted by olliemasa

    Technology came first. It's a fact.

    Wrong.

    This is a real chicken or the egg scenario, when we all know that the first chicken had to come from an egg. The same is with technology, it spawned from science.

    Science is the art of observance, it's all based on watching/analyzing and probability. Technology is always invented using scientific methodology, even the first club comprised of a stick, twine and a rock came through observing the properties of the materials and using forethought to come up with an outcome - SCIENCE!!! The same applies to why phones are now computers and music devices, soon they will make it a microwave cooking device and stun gun. People apply the next possible option. (SCIENCE!!!)

    Also, science doesn't come from a calculator or space probe, people had to know how to program the device to be accurate in the first place. Science wins.

    Writer / Musician / Game Designer

    Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
    Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    Originally posted by GTwander

    Originally posted by olliemasa

    Technology came first. It's a fact.

    Wrong.

    This is a real chicken or the egg scenario, when we all know that the first chicken had to come from an egg. The same is with technology, it spawned from science.

    Science is the art of observance, it's all based on watching/analyzing and probability. Technology is always invented using scientific methodology, even the first club comprised of a stick, twine and a rock came through observing the properties of the materials and using forethought to come up with an outcome - SCIENCE!!! The same applies to why phones are now computers and music devices, soon they will make it a microwave cooking device and stun gun. People apply the next possible option. (SCIENCE!!!)

    Also, science doesn't come from a calculator or space probe, people had to know how to program the device to be accurate in the first place. Science wins.

    Not sure if you can realistically label prehistoric discoveries as science, solely on the basis of simple tools being derived from observation.  Observational capacity would have been nothing more than a survival instinct for them, and they probably wouldn't have had the time or brain capacity to conduct the usual observe>hypothesize>test>refine hypothesis>test>declare results routine.  It would have been more along the lines of observe>test>refine observation (if your variation of the hunting party's weapon of choice doesn't get you killed by a large creature).

    The point being that they wouldn't have had the resources to ponder over their creation to qualify it as science as we know it.  Labeling it as such would be tantamount to going to a monkey exhibit at the zoo and watching one smash open a nut with a rock, and calling it science.

  • nunezchiconunezchico ParisPosts: 4Member

    Technology came first. Wheel is older than angular momentum.Today when we talk of technology , we mean technology based on principles of science. But earlier technology was empirical ( It is not that science-based tech has totally replaced empirical tech.; both coexist in the world takes as a whole.) So if your definition of technology includes trial -and-error technology , tech came before science.If your definition of tech is restricted to modern tech , obviously science must precede it.

  • AelfinnAelfinn Roundabouts that cold chill moving up your spine, NCPosts: 3,857Member

    Originally posted by royalleopard

    More examples of technology happening with out the knowledge of science can be found like mummification thousands of years ago withe the Ancient Egyptians and how steel pans where made by persons of no harmonic scientific knowledge in the Caribbean.

    But how does one come about supporting scientific laws but through the use of technology....

    I would like some examples of case where science as occurred without any use of technology to support it.

    Depending on whether or not you call a pair of sticks stuck in the ground technology...

    Early astronomy/astrology principles were made almost purely through observation. Using those sticks I mentioned, you can for instance mark the angular position of the sun, stars, and moon as they rise and set. A bit of calculation (and a hell of a lot of patience waiting to be able to collect the data) and you can predict those same positions years and decades down the road with a great deal of accuracy. Summer/winter solstice, spring/fall equinox, new moon, full moon, times when Venus and other planets are visible, partial and full solar eclipse...

    As for the primary question, it really depends upon how basic your definition of the two categories get. At the most basic level, science always comes first. Of course by that point your scientific experiments go something like: Krug drops dark rock (flint) and sharp piece came off, Krug needs more cutting edges, so Krug try breaking dark rock again.

    "Krug" here does not have to understand why the homogenuous nature of flint allows well placed blows to chip off flakes directly related to the vector of the blow. He can observe the act, and experiment with it, that IS science at its heart.

    No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
    Hemingway

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

    Originally posted by twodayslate

    Originally posted by GTwander


    Originally posted by olliemasa

    Technology came first. It's a fact.

    Wrong.

    This is a real chicken or the egg scenario, when we all know that the first chicken had to come from an egg. The same is with technology, it spawned from science.

    Science is the art of observance, it's all based on watching/analyzing and probability. Technology is always invented using scientific methodology, even the first club comprised of a stick, twine and a rock came through observing the properties of the materials and using forethought to come up with an outcome - SCIENCE!!! The same applies to why phones are now computers and music devices, soon they will make it a microwave cooking device and stun gun. People apply the next possible option. (SCIENCE!!!)

    Also, science doesn't come from a calculator or space probe, people had to know how to program the device to be accurate in the first place. Science wins.

    Not sure if you can realistically label prehistoric discoveries as science, solely on the basis of simple tools being derived from observation.  Observational capacity would have been nothing more than a survival instinct for them, and they probably wouldn't have had the time or brain capacity to conduct the usual observe>hypothesize>test>refine hypothesis>test>declare results routine.  It would have been more along the lines of observe>test>refine observation (if your variation of the hunting party's weapon of choice doesn't get you killed by a large creature).

    The point being that they wouldn't have had the resources to ponder over their creation to qualify it as science as we know it.  Labeling it as such would be tantamount to going to a monkey exhibit at the zoo and watching one smash open a nut with a rock, and calling it science.


    sci·enceNoun


    1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


     


    That (What I hilighted in red) is the very definition of science my friend. Science comes first... It doesn't matter if it's a club or a computer. The simple fact that some forethought and observation went into the creation of these devices make them scientific advances.


     


    Edit: And to think that we humans are the only ones in the animal kingdom with the capability to achieve through observational science is extremely arrogant. Yes the example you give is a prime example of non-human science... It's Monkey-Science!


     


     


    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    Originally posted by Brenelael

    Originally posted by twodayslate


    Originally posted by GTwander


    Originally posted by olliemasa

    Technology came first. It's a fact.

    Wrong.

    This is a real chicken or the egg scenario, when we all know that the first chicken had to come from an egg. The same is with technology, it spawned from science.

    Science is the art of observance, it's all based on watching/analyzing and probability. Technology is always invented using scientific methodology, even the first club comprised of a stick, twine and a rock came through observing the properties of the materials and using forethought to come up with an outcome - SCIENCE!!! The same applies to why phones are now computers and music devices, soon they will make it a microwave cooking device and stun gun. People apply the next possible option. (SCIENCE!!!)

    Also, science doesn't come from a calculator or space probe, people had to know how to program the device to be accurate in the first place. Science wins.

    Not sure if you can realistically label prehistoric discoveries as science, solely on the basis of simple tools being derived from observation.  Observational capacity would have been nothing more than a survival instinct for them, and they probably wouldn't have had the time or brain capacity to conduct the usual observe>hypothesize>test>refine hypothesis>test>declare results routine.  It would have been more along the lines of observe>test>refine observation (if your variation of the hunting party's weapon of choice doesn't get you killed by a large creature).

    The point being that they wouldn't have had the resources to ponder over their creation to qualify it as science as we know it.  Labeling it as such would be tantamount to going to a monkey exhibit at the zoo and watching one smash open a nut with a rock, and calling it science.


    sci·enceNoun/?s??ns/


    1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


     


    That (What I hilighted in red) is the very definition of science my friend. Science comes first... It doesn't matter if it's club or a computer. The simple fact that some forethought and observation went into the creation of these devices make them scientific advances.


     


    Edit: And to think that we humans are the only ones in the animal kingdom with the capability to achieve through observational science is extremely arrogant. Yes the example you give is a prime example of non-human science... It's Monkey-Science!


     


     


    Bren

    Again, attempting to label protohuman behaviors as science as it was defined by modern humans is very sketchy.  The true definition includes more than just observation and experimentation, which is what I assume the systematic part of that definition in green implies: the repetitive and meticulous testing, subsequent refining of the initial hypothesis, and further testing to reach a result that either proves or disproves the initial hypothesis.

    True science as it is defined today (as that definition refers to) always starts with a question, then jumps to observation.  Obviously they wouldn't have had the resources between starvation and being hunted by other mammals to look at a piece of stone and draw up a theory of what it might become, instead it is more likely that they skipped the questioning stage and semi-haphazardly jumped into the observation and experimentation stage.  That is sort of the definition of trial and error: the partial blundering of one's way into a useful idea through brute force, without proper forethought.  Hence all the archaeological evidence that shows that the first stone hand tools were end products of small mountains of discarded stones of various sizes and shapes, until it was concluded that the stone that was in the rough shape of an axe head was the most useful for shattering bone to reach marrow.

  • AelfinnAelfinn Roundabouts that cold chill moving up your spine, NCPosts: 3,857Member

    Originally posted by twodayslate

    Again, attempting to label protohuman behaviors as science as it was defined by modern humans is very sketchy.  The true definition includes more than just observation and experimentation, which is what I assume the systematic part of that definition in green implies: the repetitive and meticulous testing, subsequent refining of the initial hypothesis, and further testing to reach a result that either proves or disproves the initial hypothesis.

    True science as it is defined today (as that definition refers to) always starts with a question, then jumps to observation.  Obviously they wouldn't have had the resources between starvation and being hunted by other mammals to look at a piece of stone and draw up a theory of what it might become, instead it is more likely that they skipped the questioning stage and semi-haphazardly jumped into the observation and experimentation stage.  That is sort of the definition of trial and error: the partial blundering of one's way into a useful idea through brute force, without proper forethought.  Hence all the archaeological evidence that shows that the first stone hand tools were end products of small mountains of discarded stones of various sizes and shapes, until it was concluded that the stone that was in the rough shape of an axe head was the most useful for shattering bone to reach marrow.

    Just stop for a moment and reread what you just wrote.

    You just described a basic trial and error experiment, involving "repetitive and meticulous testing", of a type used every single day in the modern world, (mostly in biotechnology now) in order to find characteristics of an ideal tool.

    At its most basic level science is solely and simply observation and experiment, as noted by Bren above. Do the events in question come even close to the qualiber and precise detail of modern science? Hell no, but judging them on that basis is an incorrect response.

    No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
    Hemingway

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

    Originally posted by twodayslate

    Originally posted by Brenelael


    Originally posted by twodayslate


    Originally posted by GTwander


    Originally posted by olliemasa

    Technology came first. It's a fact.

    Wrong.

    This is a real chicken or the egg scenario, when we all know that the first chicken had to come from an egg. The same is with technology, it spawned from science.

    Science is the art of observance, it's all based on watching/analyzing and probability. Technology is always invented using scientific methodology, even the first club comprised of a stick, twine and a rock came through observing the properties of the materials and using forethought to come up with an outcome - SCIENCE!!! The same applies to why phones are now computers and music devices, soon they will make it a microwave cooking device and stun gun. People apply the next possible option. (SCIENCE!!!)

    Also, science doesn't come from a calculator or space probe, people had to know how to program the device to be accurate in the first place. Science wins.

    Not sure if you can realistically label prehistoric discoveries as science, solely on the basis of simple tools being derived from observation.  Observational capacity would have been nothing more than a survival instinct for them, and they probably wouldn't have had the time or brain capacity to conduct the usual observe>hypothesize>test>refine hypothesis>test>declare results routine.  It would have been more along the lines of observe>test>refine observation (if your variation of the hunting party's weapon of choice doesn't get you killed by a large creature).

    The point being that they wouldn't have had the resources to ponder over their creation to qualify it as science as we know it.  Labeling it as such would be tantamount to going to a monkey exhibit at the zoo and watching one smash open a nut with a rock, and calling it science.


    sci·enceNoun


    1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


     


    That (What I hilighted in red) is the very definition of science my friend. Science comes first... It doesn't matter if it's club or a computer. The simple fact that some forethought and observation went into the creation of these devices make them scientific advances.


     


    Edit: And to think that we humans are the only ones in the animal kingdom with the capability to achieve through observational science is extremely arrogant. Yes the example you give is a prime example of non-human science... It's Monkey-Science!


     


     


    Bren

    Again, attempting to label protohuman behaviors as science as it was defined by modern humans is very sketchy.  The true definition includes more than just observation and experimentation, which is what I assume the systematic part of that definition in green implies: the repetitive and meticulous testing, subsequent refining of the initial hypothesis, and further testing to reach a result that either proves or disproves the initial hypothesis.

    True science as it is defined today (as that definition refers to) always starts with a question, then jumps to observation.  Obviously they wouldn't have had the resources between starvation and being hunted by other mammals to look at a piece of stone and draw up a theory of what it might become, instead it is more likely that they skipped the questioning stage and semi-haphazardly jumped into the observation and experimentation stage.  That is sort of the definition of trial and error: the partial blundering of one's way into a useful idea through brute force, without proper forethought.  Hence all the archaeological evidence that shows that the first stone hand tools were end products of small mountains of discarded stones of various sizes and shapes, until it was concluded that the stone that was in the rough shape of an axe head was the most useful for shattering bone to reach marrow.

    Wrong. All 'Systematic' means is just what it implies. You observe, you experiment, you fail, you modify your next experiment based on what you observed during the failure.... Rinse/Repeat until you succeed. Monkeys and other animals do this so I'm absolutely sure Protohumans were more than capable of doing this as well. This is the very basis of science. It was 8 million years ago and it still is today. Science itself hasn't changed at all just the testing methods have become more technical. Science doesn't always start with a question either. More often than not science starts with a need which leads to the question, "How can we do this?". The question arises from the need but the need comes first. Ever heard the expression - "Necessity is the mother of all invention"?


    tech·nol·o·gyNoun


    1. The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry: "computer technology"; "recycling technologies".

    2. Machinery and equipment developed from such scientific knowledge.

    Science will always preceed technology. Without science there would be no technology... period.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • pollymolliepollymollie ParisPosts: 3Member

    Technology came first!.. right from the earliest days!. man has sought tools to improve his way of life and surrounding...

    If you think about stone age man. he used rocks and bone axes to change his world.. these where primitive technology. Moving on from there mankind has used a variety of metals (including copper, bronze,iron, steel),and right up to date titanium and more exotic materials to fashion blades .. Each successive material has been an improvement in technology over the previous and has been used in a much wider variety of purposes and functions. Science is quite a modern notion!,developing from alchemy which really started in the middle ages, and was really the for runner of modern day chemistry . These days technology and science go hand in hand, science suggests an improvement and technology finds a way to do it.

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

    Originally posted by pollymollie

    Technology came first!.. right from the earliest days!. man has sought tools to improve his way of life and surrounding...

    If you think about stone age man. he used rocks and bone axes to change his world.. these where primitive technology. Moving on from there mankind has used a variety of metals (including copper, bronze,iron, steel),and right up to date titanium and more exotic materials to fashion blades .. Each successive material has been an improvement in technology over the previous and has been used in a much wider variety of purposes and functions. Science is quite a modern notion!,developing from alchemy which really started in the middle ages, and was really the for runner of modern day chemistry . These days technology and science go hand in hand, science suggests an improvement and technology finds a way to do it.

    Sorry but even the most primitive tools have science behind them. Man didn't just go, "Hey look an axe!". These tools were made through hundreds of years of trial and error... Observation and experiment. Even something as simple as using a rock to smash something has observation and experiment behind it's practical use. Science is timeless... it existed before man was here to label it. What you explain here how tools are improved is a classic example of science in action. A tool is found to be lacking in some way. The failure of the tool is observed and a new tool design is experimented with. This continues until either the tool is deemed perfect or it starts to fail again in some way and a new design is needed. Technology is the modification of the properties of the natural world through science. Without science technology simply can not exist... period.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • king_marquisking_marquis FaroPosts: 3Member



    Well for me I chose Science........because I analyze my teacher's opinion that the technology came first because of the early man that he said early man only uses tools to survive but the big thing is they did not know anything about science! If we based our theories in science but I believe in God of course.......But lets talk about my answer that science came first........well for me i study that the early man doesnt think too much.......so they didnt know that they are already doing science........like for example about the fire......I think the fire came from a thunder strike,that strikes a tree.....so when the early man saw the fire they are curious about it....so they will try to discover it until they brains started to improve, so my main point is the early man doesnt know about anything about what they are doing like they dont know about the scientific terms........well there is some reasons why tech first before science........Well SCIENCE FIRST!!!!!

  • helgarichiehelgarichie ParisPosts: 4Member

    Science came first, without science how will technology work?



    First what is Science?

    The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 

    Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 

    Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 

    Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 

    An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 

    Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. 

    Science Christian Science. 



    Now, what is Technology?

    The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. 

    The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective. 

    Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology. 

    Anthropology The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials. 





    Reading the defination of both we can see that technology is connected to science, not the other way around.

    There is some 1 who suggest tht technology came first but i guess tht guy doesnt understand the very basic defination of science. Science opened the network of technology.

  • big_gunbig_gun Colorado Springs, COPosts: 2Member

    None of them comes first, because each needs the other to succeed and prosper, are important both science and technology needs to help scientists discover things and the United Nations mask. Also technology needs to use, or buy you will find that the warehouses full of computers that no one but other scientists can use. If not to buy scientific equipment and technology companies will fail and have no money or to develop new fuel technologies. And there was no technology scientists could never complete a thorough investigation.

  • zackkellogszackkellogs Carlsbad, CAPosts: 3Member
    Well for me I chose Science........because I analize my teachers oppinion that the technology came first because of the early man that he said early man only uses tools to survive but the big thing is they did not know anything about science! If we based our theories in science but I believe in God of course.......But lets talk about my answer that science came first........well for me i study that the early man doesnt have brains!.......so they didnt know that they are already doing science........like for example about the fire......I think the fire came from a thunder stike,that strike a tree.....so when the early man saw the fire they are curios about it....so they will try to discover it until they brains started to improve, so my main point is the early man doesnt know about anything about what they are doing like they dont know about the scientific terms........well there is some reasons why tech first before science........Well SCIENCE FIRST!!!!!
  • brinadenzellbrinadenzell Carlsbad, CAPosts: 3Member

    In the ancient world, science tended to be informal and without a strong theoretical basis, so technologies tended to appear through accidental discoveries, lucky happenstance or an iterative enhancement of current methodologies. Thus, technological advances had little scientific basis. It has to be science. Because science is defined as: Knowledge gained through study or practice. Or as: knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world. Whereas, technology is the practical application of science to commerce or industry" or "the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems.

  • EzulanEzulan BernePosts: 5Member

    Science came first, without science how will technology work?



    First wht is science?

    The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

    Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

    Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

    Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

    An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

    Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

    Science Christian Science.



    Now, wht is technology?





    The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

    The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

    Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.

    Anthropology The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.





    Reading the defination of both we can see tht technology is connected to science, not the other way around.



    There is some 1 who suggest tht technology came first but i guess tht guy doesnt understand the very basic defination of science. Science opened the network of technology.

  • karylmonmonkarylmonmon Fort Wayne, INPosts: 3Member

    Wow. I am surprised by the majority of wrong answers to a simple question. This is not open to opinion or debate.

    Technology came first. Technology is the methods people use to make things such as tools. It takes a technique to turn stones into arrowheads. Different cultures can be told apart by the way they do things. This has been going on since prehistory. Science is a methodology that has its roots in astrology and alchemy. These roots only go back a few thousand years, and what we call Science only goes back a few hundred years. Some things are true even it you can think of reasons why it might not be true. But this question is not open to debate.

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

    Originally posted by karylmonmon

    Wow. I am surprised by the majority of wrong answers to a simple question. This is not open to opinion or debate.

    Technology came first. Technology is the methods people use to make things such as tools. It takes a technique to turn stones into arrowheads. Different cultures can be told apart by the way they do things. This has been going on since prehistory. Science is a methodology that has its roots in astrology and alchemy. These roots only go back a few thousand years, and what we call Science only goes back a few hundred years. Some things are true even it you can think of reasons why it might not be true. But this question is not open to debate.

    Sorry but you're wrong. Read my previous posts if you want to know why. Without science there would be no technology. It really baffles me why that is so hard for some people to comprehend. Science does not equal people in lab coats looking in microscopes in a lab somewhere. It is Observation and Experimentation... Period. Without those two things nothing in your post I highlighted would have been possible.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • GTwanderGTwander San Diego, CAPosts: 6,035Member

    Originally posted by karylmonmon



    Technology came first. Technology is the methods people use to make things such as tools.

    That makes absolutely no sense, let me fix it for you.

    Science is the methods people use to make things such as tools.

    Tools = Technology, regardless of the level it's at. A *STICK* is technology the moment it is used as a lever, and the only way someone would even consider using it as such is upon discovering it's nature as a lever. SCIENCE!!!

     

    Let me give you a blatant example;

    I hand you a wrench > you say "what the f**k is this for" > then I explain what it does

    You had no clue what it does until I told you, and if left to figure it out, you'll apply scientific method to do so. You then can't say that the tool (tech) led you to science, because that tool was made/designed in the first place to be put to said use. It took science to make the damned tool.

    Writer / Musician / Game Designer

    Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
    Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture

  • HazelleHazelle Brampton, ONPosts: 760Member

    Originally posted by twodayslate

    Originally posted by GTwander


    Originally posted by olliemasa

    Technology came first. It's a fact.

    Wrong.

    This is a real chicken or the egg scenario, when we all know that the first chicken had to come from an egg. The same is with technology, it spawned from science.

    Science is the art of observance, it's all based on watching/analyzing and probability. Technology is always invented using scientific methodology, even the first club comprised of a stick, twine and a rock came through observing the properties of the materials and using forethought to come up with an outcome - SCIENCE!!! The same applies to why phones are now computers and music devices, soon they will make it a microwave cooking device and stun gun. People apply the next possible option. (SCIENCE!!!)

    Also, science doesn't come from a calculator or space probe, people had to know how to program the device to be accurate in the first place. Science wins.

    Not sure if you can realistically label prehistoric discoveries as science, solely on the basis of simple tools being derived from observation.  Observational capacity would have been nothing more than a survival instinct for them, and they probably wouldn't have had the time or brain capacity to conduct the usual observe>hypothesize>test>refine hypothesis>test>declare results routine.  It would have been more along the lines of observe>test>refine observation (if your variation of the hunting party's weapon of choice doesn't get you killed by a large creature).

    The point being that they wouldn't have had the resources to ponder over their creation to qualify it as science as we know it.  Labeling it as such would be tantamount to going to a monkey exhibit at the zoo and watching one smash open a nut with a rock, and calling it science.

    At the time those simple tools were state of the art technology and the folks that invented or discovered them would count as scientists.

  • blackcat35blackcat35 Lake Orion, MIPosts: 479Member

    science and technology go hand in hand.  You cannot have technology without science, and there is no point to science without the technological advances it allows.  The point of science is to have better technology.

    ==========================
    The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.

  • KisraKisra CairoPosts: 8Member

    Science comes First  then Tech

    for Example the PC ....... Science show you have to make the ships in the motherboard & CPU then there you are have new

    Technology "called PC" .......

     

    >>>>>>>>>BUT!<<<<<<<<<

    To make tho componant of the PC you need other Tools (which count as other Tech) so ...

    You have always to look at the beginning of both of them .. which i think! it might be was

    the Stone and the Stick

    small example 1Ton Huge stone human can't more it But! with long stick he might could move it

    and if he got few more log he might to roll it on the ground

    so what i think is really happning is

    1st problem or Idea 

    2nd Science and Technology help in solving that problem or in making that idea

    >>>>>>>>>BUT!<<<<<<<<<

    In the last example about stone and stick Science came first before the Technology coz if that person didn't know (Science) that long stick could help him and move that huge stone/rock he wouldn't use it ...

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.