الرئيسية
Technology is Related to Science?
Bigelow’s phrase “the practical applications of science” points to the root of much of the current confusion as to the meaning of technology. In using this phrase to describe technology he effectively placed technology beneath the umbrella of science to such an extent that science and technology are now, as Rose described, seen by many as an “indivisible pair” with technology as the subservient and dependant partner. Thus, for much of the time the pair are wrapped together into a single conceptual package known simply as “science”. This point is emphasised when surfing the Internet for technology-related teaching resources. A plethora of lesson plans exist at sites dedicated to science education. The problem is, though, that many of these lessons should properly be termed “technology” but are all too often referred to as “applied science”.
fig. 1
One source of confusion is the undoubted relationship that exists between science and technology. Sparkes illustrated this relationship (fig 1) and pointed out that even though science and technology overlap in an area which might be referred to as “applied science”, there are a number of important differences between the two (table 1), even though these differences might not be self-evident to an average member of the general public who, through neglect and through repeated use of the phrase “science and technology” has lost the distinction between “science” and between “technology”. The two cannot be told apart. Which is hardly surprising given that, as Mayr put it:
“ . . . practical usable criteria for making sharp neat distinctions between science and technology do not exist.”
table 1
Further emphasising that the area of overlap between science and technology is very much a grey one when it comes to providing it with a succinct and accurate title, Barnett pointed out that:
“To identify technology as applied science is at best a half-truth”
Equally, Black and Harrison made a useful distinction between:
“ . . . ‘contrivance’ technology exemplified by many gifted engineers in the last century who worked with no formal scientific understanding of their problems, and ‘applied science’ technology in which one increasingly needs to grasp the conceptual science even to understand the problem, let alone explore solutions "
They then went on to state that this distinction was wholly black and white:
“Neither is sufficient on its own; some problems require more of one approach, some more of the other.”
References:
Bigelow’s phrase “the practical applications of science” points to the root of much of the current confusion as to the meaning of technology. In using this phrase to describe technology he effectively placed technology beneath the umbrella of science to such an extent that science and technology are now, as Rose described, seen by many as an “indivisible pair” with technology as the subservient and dependant partner. Thus, for much of the time the pair are wrapped together into a single conceptual package known simply as “science”. This point is emphasised when surfing the Internet for technology-related teaching resources. A plethora of lesson plans exist at sites dedicated to science education. The problem is, though, that many of these lessons should properly be termed “technology” but are all too often referred to as “applied science”.
fig. 1
One source of confusion is the undoubted relationship that exists between science and technology. Sparkes illustrated this relationship (fig 1) and pointed out that even though science and technology overlap in an area which might be referred to as “applied science”, there are a number of important differences between the two (table 1), even though these differences might not be self-evident to an average member of the general public who, through neglect and through repeated use of the phrase “science and technology” has lost the distinction between “science” and between “technology”. The two cannot be told apart. Which is hardly surprising given that, as Mayr put it:
“ . . . practical usable criteria for making sharp neat distinctions between science and technology do not exist.”
| TECHNOLOGY Goal: the creation of artfacts and systems to meet people's needs Key Technological Processes | SCIENCE Goal: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding for its own sake Correseponding Scientific Processes |
| Design, invention, production | Discovery (controlled by experimentation) |
| Analysis and synthesis of design | Analysis, generalization and creation of theories |
| Holism, involving the integration of many competing demands, theories, data and ideas | Reductionism, involving the isolation and definition of distinct concepts |
| Activities always value-laden | Making virtually value-free statements |
| The search for and theorizing about new processes (e.g. control; information) | The search for and theorizing about cause (e.g. gravity; electromagnetism) |
| Pursuit of sufficient accuracy in modelling to achieve success | Pursuit of accuracy in modelling |
| Taking good decisions based on incomplete data and approximate models | Drawing correct conclusions based on good theories and accurate data |
| Design, construction, testing, planning, quality assurance, problem solving, decision making, interpersonal and communication skills | Experimental and logical skills |
| Trying to ensure, by subsequent action, that even poor decisions turn out to be successful | Using predictions that turn out to be incorrect to falsify or improve the theories or data on which they were based |
Further emphasising that the area of overlap between science and technology is very much a grey one when it comes to providing it with a succinct and accurate title, Barnett pointed out that:
“To identify technology as applied science is at best a half-truth”
Equally, Black and Harrison made a useful distinction between:
“ . . . ‘contrivance’ technology exemplified by many gifted engineers in the last century who worked with no formal scientific understanding of their problems, and ‘applied science’ technology in which one increasingly needs to grasp the conceptual science even to understand the problem, let alone explore solutions "
They then went on to state that this distinction was wholly black and white:
“Neither is sufficient on its own; some problems require more of one approach, some more of the other.”
References:
- Hilary and Stephen Rose - “Science and Society” (1969) - Penguin
- Sparkes, J - “Some Differences Between Science and Technology” in McCormack, Newey and Sparkes (eds) (1992) “Technology for Technology Education”
- Mayr, O - “The Science-Technology Relationship as a Historiographics Problem” (1976) - “Technology and Culture 17”
- Barnett, M - “A Coherent Policy for Science and Technology - Some Difficulties Examined”
- Black, P and Harrison G - “In Place of Confusion: technology and Science in the School Curriculum” (1985)
» SETIC Executive Committee
» Vote for your eligible candidates on Wednesday!
» Welcome To SETIC !!!
» Science Fair 2012 2013
» Happy NewYear 2011
» welcome adha
» Test Picture
» Mail Has Arrived at MICDS!