Technology winning over Science

[Aryan]

Technology, is the gift of Science

But nowadays it seems like people are more interested in technology than science
I mean you often hear of new technological advances, new gadgets, etc.
But how often do you hear about new scientific theories.

I mean look back an in the 1900 - 1920s
you had a huge development in science, from quantum theory, relativity, to all sorts of new methods in mathematics, like game theory, etc.
Conceptual understanding had increased.

But now conceptual understanding is developing at a slow pace, as people are more concerned about applications rather than concepts.

What can be the reason for this ?

I think, that since nowadays academic constraints require you to bring the highest marks and the best record, INTJs and ENTJs probably do better than INTPs and ENTPs. Because it has been seen INTPs and ENTPs arent so good acdemically.

And now when the research certificates go into the hands of INTJs and ENTJs, then things go over to technlogies rather than science. because INTjs and ENTJs are the types more concerned with technology rather than concepts (which is the field of INTPs ENTPs).

[crofbe]

Technology, is the gift of Science
Usually no, fire predates any understanding of heat and thermodynamics.


But nowadays it seems like people are more interested in technology than science
I mean you often hear of new technological advances, new gadgets, etc.
But how often do you hear about new scientific theories.
There are...they're just more obscure because we're flooded with technology. Besides, who doesn't have more fun using the internet than trying to rebuild it from scratch? The guy who envisioned the internet in the first place should be the most famous person in the world, but hardly anyone even knows him.


I mean look back an in the 1900 - 1920s
you had a huge development in science, from quantum theory, relativity, to all sorts of new methods in mathematics, like game theory, etc.
Conceptual understanding had increased.
In 100 years, if things are still similar to the way thing are now, we'll hear about the theories expounded in academia today. There are plenty, they just have steeper curves.


But now conceptual understanding is developing at a slow pace, as people are more concerned about applications rather than concepts.

What can be the reason for this ?
Capitalism? Greed? Corporate slogans like "what can we do for you?" or "The power of dreams" are reminiscent of 1984, Brazil. In a dystopia, most people <i>like</i> being in it.


I think, that since nowadays academic constraints require you to bring the highest marks and the best record, INTJs and ENTJs probably do better than INTPs and ENTPs. Because it has been seen INTPs and ENTPs arent so good acdemically.

And now when the research certificates go into the hands of INTJs and ENTJs, then things go over to technlogies rather than science. because INTjs and ENTJs are the types more concerned with technology rather than concepts (which is the field of INTPs ENTPs).
typology isn't everything.

[indie]

I wouldn't say technology "wins" over science. They fuel each other.

Technology creates the tools that can be used to further the understanding of science. A further understanding of science creates new uses of technology, and so on, exponentially.

[glassmoon]

Interesting topic. Technology sells, not science.

[coffeezombie]

Technology is the practical version of science, and people want practicality these days. Whatever can make them more money or make their life easier and more convenient.

[Chall T. Dow]

One reason that there has been a minor slow down in scientific breaktroughs is because we don't have advanced enough measuring instruments. When techology advances far enough then we will be able to make more acurate observations which will allow the theory to advance as well. Then new technology will be developed based on these theories and the cycle will continue.

Chall T. Dow

[moni]

I wouldn't say technology "wins" over science. They fuel each other.

Technology creates the tools that can be used to further the understanding of science. A further understanding of science creates new uses of technology, and so on, exponentially.

I second that! This is just a small example, but... I work in a molecular bioscience lab, and for the past year, I've been helping out a co-worker with a web application he's made (all written in Perl). I don't understand exactly what is being analyzed with the Arabidopsis genes, but all I know is, scientists can find out patterns in promoters and other things by using the web app as a tool.

[nobarcode]

..... exponentially.I saw a logarithm once...along these lines, but I'd have to go back through piles and smiles.

[Aryan]

Though technology is needed for the growth of Science, I think the craze of pure thought, and deriving whole structure of theories from mere intuition is dying out.
Playing with concepts isn't important today, because it doesn't sell. Technology does.

Only very few institutions nowadays encourage research without any practical application. Most of the institutions would support a research only if it has a practical meaning to it.

[Geek Engineer]

Yeh, I agree as well. Too much money involved with it all these days. There are still pockets of pure scientific thought out there, but I think there is always a lot of animosity over it where it does exists. Even where I work we even have an “advanced technology group“, but I hear a lot of people complain that they don’t do anything practical to make the company money. Sometimes I agree you need to be able to go in any direction in order to make a breakthrough of ground breaking proportions, but it may take an entire lifetime of trials and complete failure to make it happen.

[sjtwxgirl]

In the case of the organization I work for...it seems to boil down to money. Little or no budget available for attending conferences with other scientists, no extra time available for pure research just to find out "why". All work has to be justified by the "mission, vision" etc of the organization within the constraints of a set budget. Time is carefully budgeted and more time is placed on training in new technology (software etc)...even less time for pure research.

[CoHo]

SCIENCE!


science!

[abhaddon]

Hmm, I am not worried. No matter how much technology may be dominant in the world, I have faith that general human stupidity shall triumph, and someone will be needed to actually explain something.

[Xenophon]

I think there is plenty of scientific advancement happening, its just that we are at a point where it is really freakin tough to understand the advances that are happening in science. When you first learn physics, why do you learn Newton's theories instead of Einstein's theories? Because it is a bazillion times easier to understand. Back in earlier days, what do you think people were talking about in the streets, Rutherfords model of an atom, or the invention of the steam engine?

[coffeezombie]

There is lots of scientific advancement. Just read some of the experiments about scientists showing that we might be able to "transport" things a la Star Trek someday.

[nihilist]

Most people can only process simplistic, limited information before getting bored. The mainstream media needs to sell something that catches a reader's attention. Would the average human being read a terse tech/pop-sci article on another interesting yet futile gadget or a purely technical scholarly article about an ostensibly minor but significant scientific discovery?

[indie]

I saw a logarithm once...along these lines, but I'd have to go back through piles and smiles.

Well, I'd imagine it starts to level off at some point relative to the amount of specialization. . . in a lot of people's minds there is a very blurry line between the applications of science and of technology.

It seems that theoretical science does not always require as much of the "technology" as does hard science, but at the same time, it seems to create those technologies that benefit the hard sciences. But then again, a lot of lab mistakes have created some amazing innovations of technology. Like. . . the post-it note :) It's interesting to think about, anyway. There's definitely some "trade off" between the two that almost certainly has to be exponential.

I wonder at what point today's society is on the curve? It seems that we have come so far, so fast, but like anything, that rate of phenomenon can only go on for so long before the rate of increase decreases relative to the previous increases and whatnot.