Textbook Making Modern Science by Peter Bowler and Iwan Morus - Essay Example

?History of Science: Review a chapter of Peter Bowler and Iwan Morus’s textbook Making Modern Science. Chapter 17 of Bowler and Morus’s textbook on the history of science1 is entitled “Science and Technology” and it deals with the increasingly close connection between these two phenomena in the modern world. The main point of the chapter is to point out that this was not always the case and show how and why this close proximity of the two areas has happened in relatively recent times. Citing the scholar Latour,2 the authors maintain (p. 393) that modern terms such “technoscience” suggest that the technology and science are identical. In fact, however, scientists and historians have argued for many centuries about the differences between the two, suggesting that pure science is hierarchically different from its applications in the world of work. The chapter explains how some thinkers place science above technology, and others place science below technology, in importance. The authors finally come to the conclusion that the best way to think about these two things is to observe examples and conclude that “little practical distinction is made between the two.” (p. 401) The authors start with recent times and argue that the most common view in the twentieth century was that science was more pure, and more important because it dealt with ideas and truths. Technology was considered a lesser area of study because it was concerned with merely things. It could be said that this is an idealist position, because it is theoretical, and imaginary, rather than concrete and applied. An interesting aspect of the authors’ approach is that it also brings in cultural and political factors. Scientists often see things through a narrow lens, in terms of numbers and theories, as if these things are absolute, but this chapter shows that ideas like Marxism influenced science. This ideology strongly favors a materialistic view of things, and stresses the usefulness of ideas in the real world. For scientists in Soviet Russia, then, technology was seen as more important. Scientists in the Capitalist western countries, on the other hand, continued with old ideas from the Enlightenment, which favored the theoretical over the practical. Another useful comparison is drawn (pp. 396-397) between French and English government approaches to the funding of science in the nineteenth century. In France the government wanted to promote science for its wealth-bringing potential, and funded research very generously, while in Britain there was a more relaxed attitude which left research to be more of a gentleman’s hobby which was funded by private money. Looking at the world of science today it is interesting to see that these same old debates are still very relevant, because scientists always have to seek various sources of funding for their work. The American contribution to this debate was to emphasize the importance of inventors like Morse and Edison, who used their craft skills and intelligence to improve existing designs and create completely new ones. These men referred to traditional scientists, also, when they needed to solve some problems, which goes to show that theory and practice need to work together if progress is to be made. The chapter contains a number of headings, some of which are indicators of a particular example such as “steam culture” while others are more fancy such as “the chicken and the egg” and “invisible technicians.” These fancy headings do not help the reader to work out what the next topic is going to be. Unlike most historical textbooks, this one does not present the facts in chronological order, since it jumps back and forward through the ages, following the arguments for and against the supremacy of science or technology. This can be confusing, since at first it is not clear which way the authors wish the reader to follow. This is a weakness in the chapter, because a lot of the time the reader feels lost, and wondering what the point is that the authors want to make. After several pages, however, it becomes clear that the message emerging out of the examples is that both science and technology are equally important. This is point is repeated again and again, which becomes rather boring. It could be said that the argument develops by stating for and against, several times, and then ending in the middle. The summing up begins on page 411 but it uses very elaborate language: “It should be clear from these examples that there has been more at stake historically in deciding the relationship between science and technology than just philosophy or epistemological nicety.” This chapter would have been improved by a smaller number of examples and a clearer indication of where the pro argument is, and where the con argument is. The way it stands, there is a bit of a muddle in the center part of the chapter. One way of checking the current American view of this argument is to look at Government structure, and it is interesting to note that there is no department of science, or department of technology, but that there is an “Office of Science and Technology Policy” 3 This suggests that the authors’ view is valid. The best features of this chapter are a) the illustrations and b) the conclusion. The illustrations are good because they are taken from real books dating from the time of the arguments which are being discussed. So for example there are pictures of people (for example Samuel Morse on page 405) and machines, which gives a realistic impression of what is being talked about and who is speaking. In particular the costumes remind us that some of these arguments took place hundreds of years ago and the images are drawings, or perhaps engravings, which reminds us that everything was done without modern writing and calculation aids. The conclusion is good because it moves on from the boring and repetitive arguments that have gone before, and states some of the implications of these arguments as they continue into the present day. It shows that science and technology are now and have always been interconnected. Overall the chapter raises only one question, namely whether science or technology is more important, and it fails to answer the question, but does explain some of the political and ideological issues which make question reappear again and again. References Bowler, Peter and Morus, Iwan. Making Modern Science: a historical survey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Chapter 17 “Science and Technology”, pp. 391 – 414. Latour, Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987. “Structure of the United States Government”. Available at: http://www.theusgov.com/ Read More