Is Technology Simply Applied Science - Essay Example

Running head: Technology Is Technology Simply Applied Science? ___________ ________________________ ________________ Is Technology Simply Applied Science? Introduction There is an enduring argument which maintains that science and applied science, on the one hand, and technology, on the other, are entirely distinct concepts and processes. Pure scientists, invariably, view technology as some kind of science less application of science; they reckon it as some kind of auxiliary science only if their scientific pursuits require inordinate assistance from new techniques and equipments which help with complicated measures and testing. In fact science is the purest form of rational thought process and gives birth to applied science-which helps make abstract ideas developed in pursuit of science to more applicable forms which are often amenable to replication though such replication still maintains theoretical objectives primarily. Technology, on its part, represents another level of replication and application and draws often from applied science. This level is mass based and commercial. It also has solutions of everyday human problems at the core of its emphasis. In fact the three concepts of science, applied science and technology can be viewed as sequenced concepts on a knowledge continuum with science at one end and technology on the other. This paper pursues this argument further and goes on to nail the distinction between applied science and technology. Science, Applied Science, Engineering and Technology The classical and conventional distinction between pure and applied sciences was best explained by Mario Bunge 40 years ago (Bunge, 1966, and subsequent revisions of Mitcham and Mackey, 1972, & Rapp, 1974). In this acclaimed write up the author proposed that one must comprehend engineering as a specific kind of applied science. Bunge clarified that it is not the objectives in terms of meeting differing needs which adequately explain the difference between pure and applied science, "but the limit must be drawn . . . between the investigator who searches for a new law of nature and the investigator who applies known laws to the design of a useful gadget." While the former scientist has an urge to understand things better in their natural settings often by unearthing and discovering new natural relations, the latter has the primary intent of upgrading our mastery of them (Bunge in Rapp, 1974, p. 20). Engineering is the discipline that is the closest link the society has to technology. Most technological advances have been sourced from out of the various sub disciplines within the main discipline of engineering. Engineering, as a taught discipline, was considered as science for long.In nineteenth century engineering dealt less with artifacts and more with basic mechanics and chemicals and scientific theories. Subsequently the engineering became artifacts centric and it was easy to make a distinction between engineering as a study of artifacts and of pure science as a study of natural laws. However advances in scientific experimentation have increased manifold, the participation of artifacts in such scientific experimentations also increased manifold thus blurring the distinction further more. Next argument relating to the distinction between the two related to the creative inputs that engineers possessed which enabled them to find newer solutions and create newer devices and equipments. However in 1980s and 1990s detailed methodologies of construction were in print published (Dylla, 1990; Müller, 1990; Hubka, 1981), which exhibited clearly that it was fairly easy to develop models of a typical engineering undertaking to obtain step by step, the final constructive solution of a given problem. These constructed methodologies exhibited that it was eminently feasible to obtain heuristic methods which would obviate any specific and extraordinary input of creativity in most engineering undertakings. Then there were ontological view that clinched the issue of distinction between science and engineering. Though a close scrutiny of engineering science curricula would reveal that engineering does make use of idealizations or of theoretical concepts-which enables them envision the application and results of technologies-but such theories do not have the objective of developing or testing further theories ,as is done in science, instead the idea behind such use is to "find out what ought to be done in order to bring about, prevent or just change the pace of events on their course in a preassigned way" (Bunge in Rapp, 1974,p. 23). This implies that engineering takes the given body of theoretical knowledge and builds upon it to better everyday situations and solve problems. Thus there is no need for abstract true laws or theories and rather such laws are adapted to derive solutions and methods for problem solving. For an engineer these theories and laws are best viewed in a normative and intentional context, as he has operative ends in sight, whereas the scientist intends merely the cognitive knowledge. An engineer is not interested to go deeper in true laws he has more interest in bettering solution ends using existing laws. Bettering has connotations of effectiveness and effectiveness, in this context, depends on the success of the adoption of the results of basic research to a means for an intended end (Skolimowski, 1974, p. 85). Thus according to Bunge one can, at best, place engineering as equivalent to an applied science.Bunge often uses technology and applied science in a synonymous manner. Even Gardner (1994) shows how Francis Bacon maintained that technology should be applied science and that other subsequent literature also held to this view. This paper maintains that this view is not based on substantive arguments. Distinctions between Technology and Applied Science It is already stated that engineering is the closest link to technology this society has. Once engineering discipline has taught its students how to use existing body of knowledge to better situations and solve problems-then such students go about finding such situations and problems. Technology, of the present day, represents such situations and solutions. The artifacts present in such situations and problems can be considered to be outputs of technology if technology sought a hard and object oriented solution and; similarly new techniques and methods afforded to such situations and problems could be considered as outputs of technology if such technology sought a soft solution. The main question is what comprises technology. Technology is simply development of a standardized and established method for dealing with a problem or situation. It comprises in new equipments (hardware) and methods (software). Technology – as defined by the US National Academy of Science (cited in Jones 1996, p.17) – "is a perishable resource comprising knowledge, skills, and the means of using and controlling factors of production for the purpose of producing, delivering to users, and maintaining goods and services, for which there is an economic and/or social demand". In respect of advances in computer and communication technology many authors have maintained similar societal problems solving refrain. Mattill(1993) says such technology has been crucial to the economic, environmental and social well-being of populations in nations harnessing advances in such technology with main beneficiary nations being Western and developed Asian countries. Similarly McKern (1996) states that improvements to the standard of living, increased public and private sector productivity, the creation of new industries and improved public services, have been fostered by a culture in favour of such forms of technology. These views pin down the problem solving nature of technology in contrast to scientific pursuits which remain confined to pristine premises of educational and research institutes and their laboratories. Engineering is one of the major skills normally utilized in the development of technology apart from several other inputs including scientific knowledge. This itself proves the distinction between technology and science. As science only part contributed to the development of technology then it is bound to be distinct from technology. Some researcher place so much importance on technology that they posit that technology precedes science. They cite famous example of steam engine to illustrate that. However multiplicity of paradigms in the Kuhnian sense (Kuhn, 1970) makes for lack of focus on the issue. De Vries, (1994-i) made a study of the development process of a corkscrew product by a Dutch company called Brabantia.The product had become a resounding success. The study revealed that scientific knowledge had very limited contribution in the entire product development process and the product success was largely explained by adroit understanding of the market need and basic application of existing scientific and technological know-how. No new natural and pure laws in the scientific temper were required to understand or enhance the developmental process. Similarly various case studies in aeronautics by Vincenti carried in his well known compilation What Engineers Know and How They Know It also confirmed several such instances. In these case studies the author had examined the various types of know-how which enabled the engineers to arrive at final designs of various aircrafts. The findings were unambiguous that scientific knowledge was only one of them and not definitely the only one.(Vincenti, 1990). However In fact above definition would reveal that intents of studying engineering discipline more relate to solutions of human problems and deals with day to day objects then. Even science and technology have been accorded different statuses in our educational systems. Science has been pursued often as an abstract subject wherein students are expected to devote substantial intelligence in pursuit of pure knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Science is introduced in curricula much earlier then students ever get to acquire even basic understanding of technology; in fact, technology is treated with as much rigueur as to reduce it to education reserved for adults. Only of recent, with vast advent of computer and internet, have lower educational curricula included some instances of technological outputs like computers, more with a view to illustrate the practical application of scientific principles. (de Vries, 1994-ii).Looking at this clear distinction in applied science and technology, as exhibited by educational focus, one is tempted to change the focus of education promotion programs from " science for all" to "technology for all" or better still "science for some and technology for others" (Martin, 1995) which would imply that science would be relegated to background in a "gatekeeper" status (Gardner, 1995). A close look at our daily lives shows us what are the distinctions between technology and science. For instance take canned food products which form our lunches or even the drugs which we take in our sickness. In production of cans what natural law of science directly contributed-perhaps only those that went on to establish how in the absence of air and with some chemicals we can preserve food for long. Thereafter technology took over in implementing these ideas into finally commercialized and mass produced canned products of today. Similarly only basic chemistry determined long time back that drugs could be produced by combining certain chemicals. Technology took over in improving potency and mass production systems to reach drugs to millions. Some technologies can be entirely independent of science being entirely experiment and experience based. Bridges, for instance, were built according to experience based thumb rules as reported by Strauss (1964). Even now the length of cables in suspension bridges has to be estimated and adjusted encourse construction and no mathematical modeling or scientific system can help decide accurate length which, in turn, leaves risk in such projects.Petroski (1994). Thus science has a role in Technology but it surely does not have the only role. we think of our lunch, not to speak of our last sickness. Sciences, on the other hand, are the coddled child at least of philosophers of science, who, up to now, have developed a paradigm of science depending on their fixation on physics. Some since subjects have ridden clearly on the success of technological breakthroughs. For instance take the instance of science subject of astrophysics-it was long reckoned to be a pure academic pursuit without any link to any kind of technology. However with the development of nuclear power and construction of nuclear reactors for public good it has at once got the link to technology of the day. Engineering team entrusted with the task of constructing a fusion reactor is likely to query a plasma physicist if a high energy state of a specific type is feasible not, this may, in turn, make the plasma physicist query the astrophysicist if such a state ever took place sometime during the history of the universe. It is interesting to note that in answering these sequenced and linked queries the intents of pure scientist would vary from that of the engineering team. The plasma physicist would try to give out a theoretical answer of what might be true for the whole universe; the engineering team, on the other hand, simply wants to produce cheap energy. This clearly illustrated not only intentions vary across science and technology but also the fact that science came to contribute only when technology required it to contribute and even then such contribution was neither the sole nor even the substantial one. Thus technology is something much more than applied science. Other paradigms and more Illustration on distinction A clear distinction between applied science and technology can be drawn by another crucial illustration. In a book called Hubberts Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, Princeton professor Kenneth Deffeyes made a prediction that world oil production would peak between 2004 and 2008 and begin to slowly decline after that. Professor Deffeyes had followed the predictive technique, used successfully earlier by M. King Hubbert, who predicted that ,since oil production in any oil field follows a bell shaped curve ,the total US oil production would peak in the 1970s and thereafter would climb down secularly. Problem of oil shortage can be met through either technology alone or science alone or in some combination-however in different manners. Technology can improve sourcing technology and equipment which helps locate any remainder oil pools. Then technology can help us build rapid mass transit systems run on electricity. So far in these solutions science need not play any role as technology would leverage such solutions on existing backbone.However, the moment one reckons the shortage of electricity resources in running such mass transit systems one has to look for scientific solutions which would be expected either in the nature of development of some new and renewing source of energy or development of some new way of generating cheap electricity in pollution free manner ,say, using vast coal resources of the globe. In any case once science has played its role technology would take over.All these arguments have gone on to establish the fact that science and technology are often sequenced stages in a knowledge continuum. An applied science like engineering is the link which helps converts several scientific and fundamental laws and inventions into commercialized and mass replication state. Often technology does not require this scientific support and builds upon existing know how and offers better solutions to problems and situations. Thus proving the paradigm that technology is simply applied science untenable. As if snapping this link further researchers have proposed new paradigms like social constructivist paradigm (Bijker) or the actor-network paradigm (Callon). Pinch and Bijker (1994), for instance, exhibit the development of bicycle as a technology chiefly governed by how affected social actors determined it. Similarly Callon illustrates how the electrical car developed in France through struggles between various social actors. Works Cited Bunge, Mario. (1966). "Technology as Applied Science." Technology and Culture, 7:329-347. Revised version reprinted in Mitcham and Mackey (below), pp. 62-76, and in Rapp (below), pp. 19-39. Dylla, N. (1990). Denk- und Handlungsabläufe beim Konstruieren. Munich and Vienna: Hanser. Translated. Müller, J. (1990). Arbeitsmethoden der Technikwissenschaften: Systematik, Heuristik , Kreativität. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Translated. Hubka, V., ed. (1981). Konstruktionsmethode in Übersicht. Mailand. Translated. Skolimowski, Henryk. (1966). "The Structure of Thinking in Technology." Technology and Culture, 7:3:371-383. Reprinted in Mitcham and Mackey (above), pp. 42-49, and in Rapp (above), pp. 72-85. Gardner, P. L. (1994). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections. Part 1. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 4(2), 123-154. Jones, B. (1996). Sleepers Wake! Technology and the future of work. 4th edn. Melbourne: Oxford. Mattill, J. (1993). “Too High on High Tech?” Technology Review. Vol. 186. no. 5. July. p. 77. Cambridge, Massachusetts: William J. Hecht. McKern, B. (1997). ‘Science and Technology need respect.” Business Review. 10 March 1997. p. 60. Broadway, NSW: John Fairfax & Sons. [CD-ROM] Database viewed: Newspapers/File: Business Review 1997. Kuhn, T. S. (1970, 2nd ed.). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. de Vries, M. J. (1994-i). Design process dynamics in an experience-based context: a design methodological analysis of the Brabantia corkscrew development. Technovation 14(7), 437-448. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. de Vries, M. J. (1994-ii). Technology education in Western Europe. In Layton, D. (Ed.). Innovations in science and technology education, Vol. V. Paris: UNESCO. Martin, G. (1995). Technology for all americans. The Technology Teacher 54(6), 7. Gardner, P. L. (1995). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections. Part 2. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5(1), 1-33. Strauss, H. (1964). Die geschichte der bauingenieurkunst. Ein Ueberblick vor der antike bis in die neuzeit. Basel: Verlag Birkhauser. Translated. Petroski, H. (1994). Design paradigms. Case histories of error and judgement in engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. E. (1994). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. J. (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Read More