critical things

[gauchecritic]

We wouldn't have aeroplanes if weaving hadn't been invented.

No electricity if magnetism remained unexplained.

Practical engineering would be almost none existant without the wheel.

I was just thinking the other day; what if man had come upon technology without science.

Would we have almost useless 200 year old bodies kept alive by machines?

What about the ennui created by matter transports that would leave us without the desire to visit foreign lands?

Would we have cleansed the oceans of algae thus depriving the planet of most of its oxygen?

 

[CharleyH]

We wouldn't have aeroplanes if weaving hadn't been invented.

No electricity if magnetism remained unexplained.

Practical engineering would be almost none existant without the wheel.

I was just thinking the other day; what if man had come upon technology without science.

Would we have almost useless 200 year old bodies kept alive by machines?

What about the ennui created by matter transports that would leave us without the desire to visit foreign lands?

Would we have cleansed the oceans of algae thus depriving the planet of most of its oxygen?

Hm let me think in a pseudo second

 

[CharleyH]

We wouldn't have aeroplanes if weaving hadn't been invented.

No electricity if magnetism remained unexplained.

Practical engineering would be almost none existant without the wheel.

I was just thinking the other day; what if man had come upon technology without science.

Would we have almost useless 200 year old bodies kept alive by machines?

What about the ennui created by matter transports that would leave us without the desire to visit foreign lands?

Would we have cleansed the oceans of algae thus depriving the planet of most of its oxygen?

Okay, I get where you go. Writing also, you forgot that There is no communication without words (symbols- go crazy).

 

[gauchecritic]

Okay, I get where you go. Writing also, you forgot that There is no communication without words (symbols- go crazy).

I took an hour to think of the second one.

Words alone were what I was looking for. As critical as the wheel.

Without words you have no "What if..?"

Words are what separate us from the animals and from each other.

 

[shereads]

Words are what separate us from the animals and from each other.

Too weary to get your meaning, gauche, but this part woke me up a bit:

"...and from each other."

A little jolt to the brain. The thing I miss most when you aren't around.

We're taught to think of language as entirely positive, a way of breaking down barriers. But of course that's bunk. Words, like every other tool we get our hands on, make good weapons. If we didn't have words for groups who need to be excluded, it would be harder to pass down our distrust of the Others to the next generation.

At the Monkey Jungle, a local tourist attraction that's many monkey-generations old, the resident alligator once killed an adolescent monkey whose curiosity got the better of him. Since then, the guide told me, every new generations of young monkeys is shown the alligator pit by the older monkeys, who throw rocks at the gator and encourage the younger ones to do the same.

If the monkeys could tell their kids the story of how one of their own got too close to the monster in the pit and was murdered, the demonstration wouldn't be necessary. If they're anything like us, some of them would still throw rocks at the alligator, but only because they could.

Welcome back, gauche. I probably missed your point by lightyears. It wouldn't be the first time, but at least I have exhaustion as an excuse tonight. You always make my brain work harder. Stick around, okay?

:smiley face:

 

[McKenna]

If you've not seen The Interpreter, I'd suggest it. It certainly deals with the fallibility of words to convey a concept, and how there is a world a difference between two words that are seemingly alike. A great movie for anyone in love with language, even their own.

It's good to see you about, Gauche. You're always missed.

 

[SeaCat]

Indeed Gauch, (and welcome back by the way.) How we interperate words and their meanings is so very important to us as both humans and as authors. A good example would be to try and define love.

Cat

 

[Alex756]

No electricity if magnetism remained unexplained.

Practical engineering would be almost none existant without the wheel.

I was just thinking the other day; what if man had come upon technology without science.

Electricity and magnetism were both discovered independently of each other and practically used before the relationship between them was discovered. Although I drool like a packer fan seeing a cheese head every time that flashlight commercial comes on... the one 'Useing Faraday's principle of electromagnetic induction' I swear, I could soo easily be seduced by an 18th cent physicist it isn't funny.

As for practical engineering never underestimate the lever arm bridges are lever arm, no wheel. buildings, lever arm. Mmmm the lever arm

The line between technology and science is more and more blurred. In platonic times, easy, now .... *shrug* I can't say when one is one and one is the other and thats my major

"Science" is a VERY recent thing "technology" has been around since Lucy was walking around Africa.

~Alex

 

[shereads]

I swear, I could soo easily be seduced by an 18th cent physicist it isn't funny.

If he's wearing a lab coat, I'll fight you for him.

They were the rock stars of the 18th century, weren't they? All those ungodly ideas and strange drawing-room demonstrations. How the ladies must have quivered.

"Do stop, Mr. Faraday! If you say another word, I'll swoon."

[/bump]

 

[gauchecritic]

Electricity and magnetism were both discovered independently of each other and practically used before the relationship between them was discovered. Although I drool like a packer fan seeing a cheese head every time that flashlight commercial comes on... the one 'Useing Faraday's principle of electromagnetic induction' I swear, I could soo easily be seduced by an 18th cent physicist it isn't funny.

As for practical engineering never underestimate the lever arm bridges are lever arm, no wheel. buildings, lever arm. Mmmm the lever arm

The line between technology and science is more and more blurred. In platonic times, easy, now .... *shrug* I can't say when one is one and one is the other and thats my major

"Science" is a VERY recent thing "technology" has been around since Lucy was walking around Africa.

~Alex

Exactly my point. Thank you so much for seeing it.

As I see it, technology (or tool using for simplicity's sake) is an everyday thing, things that we can observe in ourselves. Lever arms, centre of balance, centripedal force, gravity, ballistics. They are things we can use (like the chimps throwing rocks) without the need to actually put any thought into it, only practice and application. (this is all very simplistic I know)

Whereas science, along with maths and language need positive cogitation and imply forecast and result. Like methodology rather than guesswork.

So, bearing these definitions in mind, I suppose the question I was reaching for was "Does technology require science in order to be responsible?" or to be a little more fanciful: "Is science the conscience of technology?"

For example, technology by itself gave the Australian Aborigine the lever arm extension to generate greater velocity for a thrown spear along with the returnable throwing stick. How many species or possibly 'superior' tribes were wiped out by one group being able to kill at a distance?

 

[BlackShanglan]

If those are the definitions we're using for "science" and "technology," I'd argue that most of us use the latter without the former every day. How many people really have a grasp of the functioning of their computers, televisions, or even cars that extends significantly beyond "magic box"? We understand them in a functional way - don't throw rocks at the screen, do not attempt to fast forward a grilled cheese sandwich, etc. - but modern technology is sufficiently complex that it takes a great deal of study to comprehend some of it. People in non-science disciplines don't often have the time to become expert enough in the workings of it all to have a competent grasp of their own household goods.

Sometimes I wonder how that's shaped the human mind. Peasants of the 14th century might not have known much, but they knew how to make pretty much everything they came into contact with in their daily lives, and they knew the science - such as it was - behind it. We're quite accustomed to being surrounded with marvellous devices whose basic principles are utterly unknown to us. On the other hand, disease, infection, and other basic threats to their health were impenetrable mysteries to them, while even the most basic high school education now far surpasses what their best doctors understood about anatomy and disease transmission. I wonder how that's changed us.

As for science being a conscience ... I supposed I would disagree. I think of science as essentially an empirical practice, and conscience essentially a non-imperical matter of ethics. That is, science addresses what is, what has been, and what can be, whereas ethics and conscience address what is right or what should be. I think of science more as the capacity for foresight, prediction, analysis, and extension of application. Technology allows us to shoot a rocket to the moon; science and a really thorough understanding of all principles involved allow us to consider the possible ramifications of that action, like the effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body, the relative danger of exploding that specific payload high in the atmosphere, or the possibility of contamination from some extra-terrestrial viral source. Conscience or ethics, to me, would devote themselves more to the question of whether the risks were outweighed by the gains and whether the money was better spent fighting poverty or disease. No?

Shanglan

 

[matriarch]

What the sexy, eloquent horsey said.

Why should I make the effort, when we have a beautiful thinking, and beautifully spoken mount to do it for us. (I do believe the possessive and personal prounouns in that sentence are completely and utterly confused. My apologies. I was overcome by the beauty and clarity of Shang's post.)