Tech without science
Nancy Lebovitz
For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
In other words, a system of government and trade secrets wouldn't quite
count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
style politically controlled science.
Any related sf would be good--off-hand I can't think of any that exactly
addresses the question, though I got the question from thinking about
"The Road Less Travelled" by Harry Turtledove.
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy gas price"
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
Joseph Hertzlinger
<na...@unix5.netaxs.com> wrote:
> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
>
> In other words, a system of government and trade secrets wouldn't quite
> count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
> style politically controlled science.
>
> Any related sf would be good--off-hand I can't think of any that exactly
> addresses the question, though I got the question from thinking about
> "The Road Less Travelled" by Harry Turtledove.
In "Delenda Est" by Poul Anderson, there was a society with
19th-century technology without much in the way of scientific
theories.
Myrnag2555
>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
There's no limit. But it would happen a lot slower.
>In other words, a system of government and trade secrets wouldn't quite
>count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
>style politically controlled science.
Well, hell, if you are talking about Soviet-style stuff, then it wouldn't even
be all that much slower. Maybe half as fast as a more liberal approach?
Bryan J. Maloney
news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
Presuming (not concluding) that the Romans had not so much "science" as you
define, it could get up to steam power.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
have math?
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
Ken from Chicago
"Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix5.netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
Technology without science already exists.
It's called "magic".
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
message news:41199DC3...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> >
> > na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) abagooba zoink larblortch
> > news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
> >
> > > How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> > > For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> > > to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> > > and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
> >
> > Presuming (not concluding) that the Romans had not so much "science" as
you
> > define, it could get up to steam power.
> >
> How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
> would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
> have math?
Magic.
It's rote repetition or blind trial and error without understanding the
processes behind it.
>
> --
> "Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
> spaghetti. Is that funny?"
> "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh."
> -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
-- Ken from Chicago
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
> message news:41199DC3...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
> > >
> > > na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) abagooba zoink larblortch
> > > news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
> > >
> > > > How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> > > > For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> > > > to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> > > > and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
> > >
> > > Presuming (not concluding) that the Romans had not so much "science" as
> you
> > > define, it could get up to steam power.
> > >
> > How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
> > would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
> > have math?
>
> Magic.
>
> It's rote repetition or blind trial and error without understanding the
> processes behind it.
>
I can see that giving you fire or a knife blade or something like that.
Steam power?
Bryan Derksen
Lebovitz) wrote:
>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
>to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
>and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
I read an interesting discussion a while back in which someone
speculated that the cultures of the Star Wars universe had pretty much
lost the ability to do science, and even engineering for the most
part, thanks to the help of droids. Instead, people in the Star Wars
universe are artisans. They don't really understand how the technology
works at its basic levels, but they can craft ships and devices out of
it, and when a design works well they can duplicate it and produce
variations on the theme. The speculation arose out of an attempt to
explain the apparent millennia-long near-stasis of technology levels,
and seems pretty reasonable to me; whenever anyone worked on
technology of any sophistication in the movies (ships, or Luke various
medical treatments) they didn't do it themselves, they told droids to
do it. The Death Star was the only major innovation that I'm aware of,
and it was largely a matter of a new _scale_ of construction rather
than fundamental new technology.
So anyway, you can probably "freeze" your society's technology at any
point after it develops robots sophisticated enough to build
themselves at your command. People wouldn't need an understanding of
their own technology or the science behind it any more at that point.
Mike Williams
>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
>to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
>and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
I rather like the technology behind the designs of the great gothic
cathedrals. They had no real science behind the designs, and certainly
no methods for calculating the forces, yet they constantly strove to
make buildings that were higher and had larger window-to-wall ratios. It
was all done by trial and error. The errors could be quite expensive
when a magnificent edifice crashed to the ground after decades of
construction just because the pinnacles weren't heavy enough to keep the
main columns in compression.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Myrnag2555
>> > would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
>> > have math?
>>
>> Magic.
>>
>> It's rote repetition or blind trial and error without understanding the
>> processes behind it.
>>
>I can see that giving you fire or a knife blade or something like that.
>Steam power?
>
Why not? All you need is a strong enough vessel. Having and testing a theory
about the nature of heat isn't necessary, although it helps. People developed
electroplating without science for crying out loud.
Cosmin Corbea
"Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix5.netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
>
> In other words, a system of government and trade secrets wouldn't quite
> count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
> style politically controlled science.
>
> Any related sf would be good--off-hand I can't think of any that exactly
> addresses the question, though I got the question from thinking about
> "The Road Less Travelled" by Harry Turtledove.
I don't know if that qualifies, but one of Asimov's Foundation books
describes a planet at the border of the disintegrating Empire, where the
science behind the technology is lost; engineering becomes a hereditary
trade, based on rote repetition and application of procedures and rules
nobody understands anymore.
--
Regards,
Cosmin Corbea
Erik Max Francis
> Technology without science already exists.
>
> It's called "magic".
It just doesn't work very well, that's all.
--
__ Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Triumph cannot help being cruel.
-- Jose Ortega y Gasset
Peter Bruells
> I rather like the technology behind the designs of the great gothic
> cathedrals. They had no real science behind the designs, and certainly
> no methods for calculating the forces, yet they constantly strove to
> make buildings that were higher and had larger window-to-wall ratios. It
> was all done by trial and error. The errors could be quite expensive
> when a magnificent edifice crashed to the ground after decades of
> construction just because the pinnacles weren't heavy enough to keep the
> main columns in compression.
The dome of Cologne is a good example of this, I believe. When it was
started, they did not have science, but experience and craftmanship.
They didn't just blunder around and had a clear concept of many
"hows", but not a lot of "whys" - and as a result, the foundation of
the dome is grossly overengineered. It's much stronger than it needs
to be.
Bernard Peek
<na...@unix5.netaxs.com> writes
>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far as
being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to eat and
which were poisonous. It's doubtful whether we would have managed to
invent agriculture.
--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money.
Nancy Lebovitz
When I wrote that, I realized that I didn't know much about Soviet science.
There's Lysenko on the one hand, and Sputnik on the other.
I don't know how much of Soviet accomplishment was the result of importing
scientific knowledge from elsewhere.
Nancy Lebovitz
Ken from Chicago <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
>message news:41199DC3...@backpacker.com...
>>
>>
>> "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>> >
>> > na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) abagooba zoink larblortch
>> > news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
>> >
>> > > How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>> > > For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
>> > > to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
>> > > and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
>> >
>> > Presuming (not concluding) that the Romans had not so much "science" as
>you
>> > define, it could get up to steam power.
>> >
>> How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
>> would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
>> have math?
>
>Magic.
>
>It's rote repetition or blind trial and error without understanding the
>processes behind it.
Imho, people have theories. If there's no science, then the theories for
dealing with matter will be less well founded and more intuitive.
A science fiction story on the theme would probably include a few
discoveries by the non-scientific culture that science had missed out
on. It's easy to dismiss a little too much (stomach ulcers caused by
bacteria) when you've got a powerful theory.
Nancy Lebovitz
>news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>> For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
>> to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
>> and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
>>
>> In other words, a system of government and trade secrets wouldn't quite
>> count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
>> style politically controlled science.
>>
>
>It's called "magic".
And art, business, and government.
Nancy Lebovitz
Bryan Derksen <bryan....@shaw-spamguard.ca> wrote:
>
>I read an interesting discussion a while back in which someone
>speculated that the cultures of the Star Wars universe had pretty much
>lost the ability to do science, and even engineering for the most
>part, thanks to the help of droids. Instead, people in the Star Wars
>universe are artisans. They don't really understand how the technology
>works at its basic levels, but they can craft ships and devices out of
>it, and when a design works well they can duplicate it and produce
>variations on the theme. The speculation arose out of an attempt to
>explain the apparent millennia-long near-stasis of technology levels,
>and seems pretty reasonable to me; whenever anyone worked on
>technology of any sophistication in the movies (ships, or Luke various
>medical treatments) they didn't do it themselves, they told droids to
>do it. The Death Star was the only major innovation that I'm aware of,
>and it was largely a matter of a new _scale_ of construction rather
>than fundamental new technology.
Cool speculation, though I don't think we see evidence that droids
can do that sort of work.
>
>So anyway, you can probably "freeze" your society's technology at any
>point after it develops robots sophisticated enough to build
>themselves at your command. People wouldn't need an understanding of
>their own technology or the science behind it any more at that point.
Here's a scary one--can people forget science, even without droids?
There's a chilling bit in one of Feynman's story collections about
him visiting somewhere in Latin America where the educators (can't
remember whether it included the scientists) thought that science
consisted entirely of memorization and replication of experiments.
Most people seem to think the story is funny--oooh, those silly
Latin Americans! I believe that we're all fellow humans, and we
can make the same mistakes. Also, there's a C.S. Lewis bit about
how nothing people do is going to see inevitable improvement. His
example was representational painting--it kept gettting better
for centuries....and then photography was invented (shades of those
droids) and people lost interest.
Quant Suf.!
Ken from Chicago
Sure. You're boiling a pot of food to eat and notice the lid keeps bouncing
off. Someone could have tried using a deeper rim and see how much the lid
rises or notice that lid blows off after the heat builds up an steam comes
out. After playing with it a bit someone could realize the heat plus water
can push upward on a lid connected to a handle--initially to keep the lid
from falling then someone realized the handle could be connected to some
kind of crank or gear lever. How the water turns into steam or what air
molecules are or density or energy or any other underlying science, just
that RESULTS, the technological benefits from the use of steam.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Myrnag2555" <myrna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040811031738...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Trail and error stumbling across tar keeping a boat waterproof without
understand the process of osmosis or density. Once you have a PROCESS and
got the RESULTS then you keep repeating it without question.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Also there's the reverse, the ever-popular "humans discover advance alien
technology that works even if they don't completely understand the science b
ehind it" (e.g., BABYLON 5 "jumpgates", STARGATE's "stargates", even to an
extent, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY).
-- Ken from Chicago
how...@brazee.net
On 10-Aug-2004, "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
> would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
> have math?
There has been lots of technology developed without scientific theory, nor
the scientific method. Trial and error works.
It sometimes is expensive, and it sometimes fails - when people pile up a
bunch of dirt to make a dam without calculating how well it works.
Bryan J. Maloney
zoink larblortch news:4119AFA6...@backpacker.com:
> I can see that giving you fire or a knife blade or something like
> that. Steam power?
There were steam-powered door-opening devices used in a temple. The Greeks
had gear-driven orreries that could have been used as the basis of more
general calculating devices.
Mark
> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
>
> In other words, a system of government and trade secrets wouldn't quite
> count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
> style politically controlled science.
>
> Any related sf would be good--off-hand I can't think of any that exactly
> addresses the question, though I got the question from thinking about
> "The Road Less Travelled" by Harry Turtledove.
>
>
> --
Michael P. Kube-McDowell addresses it partially--and rather well--in a
couple of novels, most especially Emprise, but also in The Quiet
Pools. And, of course, for the more libertarian minded, the infamous
Project X in Atlas Shrugged as an example of tech shorn of
independent scientific oversight.
Mark
author of:
COMPASS REACH
METAL OF NIGHT
PEACE & MEMORY
REMAINS (forthcoming)
www.marktiedemann.com
Dreamer
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
message news:41199DC3...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> >
> > na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) abagooba zoink larblortch
> > news:6KeSc.204$Q25.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
> >
> > > How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> > > For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
> > > to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
> > > and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
> >
> > Presuming (not concluding) that the Romans had not so much "science" as
you
> > define, it could get up to steam power.
> >
> How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
> would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
> have math?
I presumed she meant "without the scientific method," maybe also little or
no "pure research." I agree with a prior poster - no theoretical limit, but
a whole lot of practical hurdles. Even without science you can just go the
Pyramid route and brute-force everything. If the first one falls down, make
the second one heavier. Repeat ad success.
D
--
-><-
Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
Dreamer
ObSFWritten: "The Sword of Knowledge" trilogy, although the principal
inventor of the steam engine and the cannon is in fact that world's first
"scientist," as far as we can tell. But anybody who's ever seen a closed pot
blow up when heated is halfway to a very crude steam engine.
I don't know whether her approach would actually work, but it sounded like
it might, and it's *much* simpler than a piston steam engine. And it works
just fine at the "the spirits of water don't like heat, so they run away"
level of theory.
D
Dreamer
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:rKydncB8L6A...@comcast.com...
> Also there's the reverse, the ever-popular "humans discover advance alien
> technology that works even if they don't completely understand the science
b
> ehind it" (e.g., BABYLON 5 "jumpgates", STARGATE's "stargates", even to an
> extent, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY).
David Brin's _Startide Rising_ is set in a future where there are
"Libraries" of information that species can get hold of with way-advanced
technology. There's apparently a lot of engineering and very little theory
in them: it is discussed that Earth has a few starships which were made by
just following the recipes in such Libraries and that they're really
marvelous. But Terrans mistrust technology they don't understand and prefer
to adapt the bits they can. This makes them very unique in Galactic society.
(As does the fact that they were not Uplifted by some older race - the two
things are not unrelated.)
D
Danny Sichel
>> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far as
> being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to eat and
> which were poisonous.
Yes, but does "You! Weakling! Eat these funny-looking berries!" really
count as an experiment?
Nancy Lebovitz
There could be math, but no pure research, and whatever is learned is
more likely to be kept as family/religious/trade/government secrets.
Robert Sneddon
>
>"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
>message news:41199DC3...@backpacker.com...
>> would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
>> have math?
>
>Magic.
>
>It's rote repetition or blind trial and error without understanding the
>processes behind it.
There's at least one pyramid the early Egyptians built where they
realised their guess about the strength of the stone they were using was
wrong about half-way up and changed the slope of the rest of the
construction to prevent it collapsing. By the time of the Great Pyramids
the numbers were well known; the knowledge would have been handed down
from builder to builder but it wasn't worked out from first principles.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
David Wright Sr.
(snip)
>
> There could be math, but no pure research, and whatever is learned is
> more likely to be kept as family/religious/trade/government secrets.
Mention of the pyramids reminded me of something. Much is made by
ufologists etc. about the relationship of the height of the pyramids to
pi. They claim that because of this, that the Egyptians had actually
calculated pi.
However, the answer is simple and requires absolutely no math beyond the
ability to count and measure.
Does anyone here know the answer?
--
David Wright
Heinlein Award & Dinner
Friday, September 3, 2004 at Noreascon 4
http://heinleinsociety.org/specialoffers/dinnerreservations.html
If you haven't joined the Society, Why Not?
http://heinleinsociety.org/join.html
Keep Up with the Latest
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/updates.html
Benefit The Heinlein Society by ordering books thru
http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein-amazon.htm
Wayne Throop
: Here's a scary one--can people forget science, even without droids?
: visiting somewhere in Latin America where the educators (can't
: remember whether it included the scientists) thought that science
: consisted entirely of memorization and replication of experiments.
:
: Most people seem to think the story is funny--oooh, those silly Latin
: Americans! I believe that we're all fellow humans, and we can make the
: same mistakes.
I certainly didn't take it to be "those silly Latin Americans";
more "those silly academic fossils". The Latin-ness (to me) didn't
really enter into it.
But as to funny... well, yes, it's funny in the ObSF Heinleinian
way, ie, there are certain things we laugh at because, if we didn't,
we'd be forced to cry. Martian view of earth humor, ar ar.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
MJ Stoddard
>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments
>designed to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for
>publicizing and discussing those results with the intent of getting
>true answers.
15th century China: clocks, water power, explosives, good roads, filing
systems/indexing, sailing navigation/ships that could reach Africa
(maybe Americas), sophisticated ceramics, astronomical prediction,
metallurgy, etc.
Damien R. Sullivan
>Here's a scary one--can people forget science, even without droids?
>There's a chilling bit in one of Feynman's story collections about
>him visiting somewhere in Latin America where the educators (can't
>remember whether it included the scientists) thought that science
>consisted entirely of memorization and replication of experiments.
_Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. Brazil. I just re-read it. And I
agree, it was scary not funny. I was skeptical about how far to extrapolate
from it -- his stories make great myths, but I have no idea how true they all
are -- but then I've heard lots of similar criticisms of non-US educations vs.
US educations. "They drill, we inculcate critical thinking and creativity, or
at least don't squash them as effectively." I'd still wonder whether that was
US-centric distortion, but the anecdotes have piled up. And then my mother,
who tends to Europhilia, described her old experiences in Classics (Greek and
Latin), where the European scholars, e.g. English or Germans, did produce a
lot of repetition of old ideas, or nitpicking analysis without producing
syntheses, while the American scholars were more innovative. One guess was
that this was because Americans tend to come later to Classics, for love,
rather than it being an integral part of the education system from middle
school as it once was.
As I hinted above, the difference in effect, if real, need not be because
we're better at encouraging creativity; might be that most regimented school
systems squash individuality, but the US has a lot more cracks to fall
through. Though a Caltech education at least certainly was different than the
description of Brazil.
As for scientists, the punchline of his story was that he said "well, your
system must work for some people, because I had a couple of good students and
I know a good physicist here". Those people then got up and said they'd just
moved to Brazil or were effectively self-educated. Oops.
>Quant Suf.!
I've forgotten my own Classics. Translate, por favor?
-xx- Damien X-)
Sean Eric Fagan
Ken from Chicago <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Sure. You're boiling a pot of food to eat and notice the lid keeps bouncing
>off. Someone could have tried using a deeper rim and see how much the lid
>rises or notice that lid blows off after the heat builds up an steam comes
>out. After playing with it a bit someone could realize the heat plus water
>can push upward on a lid connected to a handle--initially to keep the lid
>from falling then someone realized the handle could be connected to some
>kind of crank or gear lever. How the water turns into steam or what air
>molecules are or density or energy or any other underlying science, just
>that RESULTS, the technological benefits from the use of steam.
How does that differ from "the scientific process"? There are hypotheses,
experimentation, and confirmation.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
Damien R. Sullivan
>Danny Sichel <dsi...@canada.com> writes:
>> Yes, but does "You! Weakling! Eat these funny-looking berries!" really
>> count as an experiment?
>
> Certainly.
As much as "You! Rat! Eat this funny chemical!"
Actually, Bernd Heinrich described ravens doing something similar. Low status
ravens get first pick at a dubious corpse. If they don't keel over, or if it
doesn't wake up and eat them, they get driven off by the high status ravens.
-xx- Damien X-)
Michael Stemper
>I don't know if that qualifies, but one of Asimov's Foundation books
>describes a planet at the border of the disintegrating Empire, where the
>science behind the technology is lost; engineering becomes a hereditary
>trade, based on rote repetition and application of procedures and rules
>nobody understands anymore.
That sounds like the planet Siwenna, in the "The Merchant Princes"
episode of _Foundation_.
However, even more appropriate would be Lord Dorwin from the "The
Encyclopedists" episode. His idea of the scientific method was to
read various books written centuries previously and weigh the opposing
arguments against each other, without ever doing any hands-on
investigation.
All together now: "If you ask me, the Galaxy is going to pot!"
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Michael Stemper
>na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>Quant Suf.!
>
>I've forgotten my own Classics. Translate, por favor?
Por suppesto! "Quant Suf!" was what the Scientific People said. They said
it because that's what it said at the end of some scrap of a synthesis that
they had preserved: Quant(ity) Suf(ficient). Since this was scientific, they
regularly said it. It's scientific.
And, if you've really forgotten your classics to the point where you don't
remember this, you'd best dig out your dusty old copy of either _The Stars
My Destination_ or _Tiger, Tiger_ and re-read it.
--
Michael "or did you mean 'Greek and Latin'?" Stemper
Michael Stemper
>Mention of the pyramids reminded me of something. Much is made by
>ufologists etc. about the relationship of the height of the pyramids to
>pi. They claim that because of this, that the Egyptians had actually
>calculated pi.
>
>However, the answer is simple and requires absolutely no math beyond the
>ability to count and measure.
>
>Does anyone here know the answer?
<rot-13>
V oryvrir gung vg'f orpnhfr gung'f gur engvb gung tvirf gur zvavzhz
fhesnpr nern gb ibyhzr engvb.
</rot-13>
I didn't work it out myself; I just read it last week at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pinefam/examples/examples_default.htm
--
Michael F. Stemper
David Wright Sr.
news:200408111747...@mickey.empros.com:
> In article <Xns954274F79...@130.133.1.4>, David Wright Sr.
> writes:
>
(snip)
>
> I didn't work it out myself; I just read it last week at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~pinefam/examples/examples_default.htm
>
I'm sure that it is true, but that's not the answer.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in
>news:h4qSc.299$qp5.1...@monger.newsread.com:
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>
>> There could be math, but no pure research, and whatever is learned is
>> more likely to be kept as family/religious/trade/government secrets.
>
>Mention of the pyramids reminded me of something. Much is made by
>ufologists etc. about the relationship of the height of the pyramids to
>pi. They claim that because of this, that the Egyptians had actually
>calculated pi.
>
>However, the answer is simple and requires absolutely no math beyond the
>ability to count and measure.
>
>Does anyone here know the answer?
The pyramid builders used a circular stone for measurement. They would
measure length by rolling the stone (with a mark on the circumference)
and counting the revolutions, they would measure height by the height of
the stone. Unsurprisingly, the result incorporated the difference
between the height of the stone and the circumference of the stone.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
David Wright Sr.
news:ngokh0h645g7plqi5...@4ax.com:
(snip)
>>However, the answer is simple and requires absolutely no math beyond
>>the ability to count and measure.
>>
>>Does anyone here know the answer?
>
> The pyramid builders used a circular stone for measurement. They
> would measure length by rolling the stone (with a mark on the
> circumference) and counting the revolutions, they would measure height
> by the height of the stone. Unsurprisingly, the result incorporated
> the difference between the height of the stone and the circumference
> of the stone.
>
>
Give the man a gold star!!! You got it precisely.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Myrnag2555 wrote:
>
> >> > How does engineering work without science? Are you saying that they
> >> > would have no theories about how things were? Or just that they wouldn't
> >> > have math?
> >>
> >> Magic.
> >>
> >> It's rote repetition or blind trial and error without understanding the
> >> processes behind it.
> >>
> >I can see that giving you fire or a knife blade or something like that.
> >Steam power?
> >
>
> Why not? All you need is a strong enough vessel.
>
How many people would be killed before you came up with redundant
pressure relief valves and the strength in whatever you were going to
contain the water and steam?
> Having and testing a theory
> about the nature of heat isn't necessary, although it helps. People developed
> electroplating without science for crying out loud.
>
The Chinese took many hundreds of years, I think it was, to figure out
that what was coming out of their brine wells and killing workers wasn't
evil spirits but natural gas. If you only allow actions of the level of
monkey see, monkey do, it's going to take a damn long time to build a
steam engine. And what is the dividing line between science and
technology?
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
There are many things that we would call 'science' that we stumble upon
using trial and error, and don't yet know the fundamental situation.
scottsanford
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix5.netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <tdcjh0prq2vs2bb27...@4ax.com>,
>Bryan Derksen <bryan....@shaw-spamguard.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I read an interesting discussion a while back in which someone
>>speculated that the cultures of the Star Wars universe had pretty much
>>lost the ability to do science, and even engineering for the most
>
>Here's a scary one--can people forget science, even without droids?
>There's a chilling bit in one of Feynman's story collections about
>him visiting somewhere in Latin America where the educators (can't
>remember whether it included the scientists) thought that science
>consisted entirely of memorization and replication of experiments.
supports that, and many people don't learn it well in the first place.
But that's not really the question, is it?
Can a civilization lose technology? Yes, but it's harder. Some island
populations in Polynesia lost agricultural techniques (or all agriculture)
and/or shipbuilding. Europe lost concrete after the fall of the Roman
Empire, which is strange because the Europeans really could have used it.
>Most people seem to think the story is funny--oooh, those silly
>Latin Americans! I believe that we're all fellow humans, and we
>can make the same mistakes. Also, there's a C.S. Lewis bit about
>how nothing people do is going to see inevitable improvement. His
>example was representational painting--it kept gettting better
>for centuries....and then photography was invented (shades of those
>droids) and people lost interest.
Almost, but not quite (I happen to be in an Art History class at the
moment, so this is in the front of my mind). Representationalism goes in
and out of style over the years and in different places; both Roman and
Renaissance art features plenty of competent representational pieces, but
with a large gap between them. Classical Greek art was more idealized
than representational, but you'll see considerable abstraction between the
Greek and Roman eras, too. But if C.S. Lewis is giving an arguement at
the 'shooting your mouth off in a pub' level of accuracy, yeah, that's
just fine.
--
Scott Sanford <*> <*> <*> Antibot addresss: wyvern at agora dot rdrop dot com
GO/U h++ s++:+ g+ a- w++ v+/*/? C++ UB+/++ N++ K? !W M--(++) 5++ r+++ b+++ f?
dsc...@bellatlantic.net
The cathedrals built in Europe in the Middle Ages should certainly
qualify as "technology without science" (and old claim was that the
architect would simply double the amount of support initially thought
of). I've heard the claim that half of those cathedrals subsequently
fell down.
Of course, a sufficiently smart alec architect could claim that after
the first generation of cathedral building, they scientifically "knew"
how to build a standing cathedral. Just build at least two.
Scott
Bradford Holden
> When I wrote that, I realized that I didn't know much about Soviet science.
> There's Lysenko on the one hand, and Sputnik on the other.
>
> I don't know how much of Soviet accomplishment was the result of importing
> scientific knowledge from elsewhere.
Snide comments about Soviet biology aside, the math chemistry and
physics that came out of the Soviet Union was excellent. Arguably,
the largest barrier to advancement was not the quality of their
science but rather the quality of their technology. Scientists
ruthlessly exploit any new advance that could help them answer a
question. In effect, the process of moving a scientific advance in
the lab into a technology advance is self-amplifying. As the
technology gets better, the experiments get more sophisticated, the
analysis more subtle and the exchange of views happens more quickly
(thus bringing advances to everyone in the field). Because the
Soviet Union had such a terrible technical base in, say, electronics,
their scientists were really hampered in many fields. They made up
for it many clever ways but it was a losing proposition in the long
run.
--
Bradford Holden
In short, both Empire of Man in "Mote in the God's Eye" and Human
Polity in "The Skinner" can be described as "Utopia through superior
firepower". - Corbell5571
Konrad Gaertner
It's missing the publication and peer review.
--KG
how...@brazee.net
On 11-Aug-2004, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far as
> being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to eat and
> which were poisonous. It's doubtful whether we would have managed to
> invent agriculture.
We didn't use the scientific method to do either of the above.
Myrnag2555
>Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far as
>being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to eat and
>which were poisonous.
That's not the scientific method. It has no explanation for what causes some
berries to be good and others to be poisonous. It takes more than trial and
error and passing on the results to qualify as the scientific method.
Myrnag2555
>>off. Someone could have tried using a deeper rim and see how much the lid
>>rises or notice that lid blows off after the heat builds up an steam comes
>>out. After playing with it a bit someone could realize the heat plus water
>>can push upward on a lid connected to a handle--initially to keep the lid
>>from falling then someone realized the handle could be connected to some
>>kind of crank or gear lever. How the water turns into steam or what air
>>molecules are or density or energy or any other underlying science, just
>>that RESULTS, the technological benefits from the use of steam.
>
>How does that differ from "the scientific process"? There are hypotheses,
>experimentation, and confirmation.
>
The lack of any search for an explanation for the observed phenomenon. Seeing
an effect and looking for a way to practically use the effect without ever
considering what could have caused the effect is not science. It's invention.
Myrnag2555
>pressure relief valves and the strength in whatever you were going to
>contain the water and steam?
>
Lots.
Ken from Chicago
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
message news:411A751...@backpacker.com...
<snip>
> > Having and testing a theory
> > about the nature of heat isn't necessary, although it helps. People
developed
> > electroplating without science for crying out loud.
> >
> The Chinese took many hundreds of years, I think it was, to figure out
> that what was coming out of their brine wells and killing workers wasn't
> evil spirits but natural gas. If you only allow actions of the level of
> monkey see, monkey do, it's going to take a damn long time to build a
> steam engine. And what is the dividing line between science and
> technology?
The difference between being an auto mechanic and being an automotive
engineer. The former knows HOW the machine works, what pieces got where,
whether those parts are in good condition and how to repair it. The latter
knows WHY the machine works and could design one from scratch (while the
former could rebuild one from scratch).
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Sean Eric Fagan" <s...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:I2AJ2...@kithrup.com...
The dividing line would be stopping at just getting the RESULTS, the work,
as opposed to going on to understand REASONING behind why it works.
-- Ken from Chicago
David Goldfarb
>technology that works even if they don't completely understand the science b
>ehind it" (e.g., BABYLON 5 "jumpgates", STARGATE's "stargates", even to an
>extent, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY).
B5's jumpgates don't belong in this category; they were perfectly
well-understood tech for everyone involved.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"I suppose an idiot plot is better than
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | no plot at all."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Katie Schwarz
Sean Eric Fagan
Myrnag2555 <myrna...@aol.com> wrote:
>>How does that differ from "the scientific process"? There are hypotheses,
>>experimentation, and confirmation.
>The lack of any search for an explanation for the observed phenomenon. Seeing
>an effect and looking for a way to practically use the effect without ever
>considering what could have caused the effect is not science. It's invention.
I'm not really denying that -- I agree that it's not "science," but
"technology" (or "applied magic," take your pick :)). But... as I said, it
matches "the scientific process," even if it doesn't delve into the reasons.
And so you should be able to advance quite a bit.
Of course, I think it is inevitable that, once you've got that process of
experimentation down, you will inevitably start trying to figure out the
*reasons* for it.
But "the scientific method" is really not abstract: it's very goal-oriented,
and is perfectly suited to physical processes.
Sean Eric Fagan
Myrnag2555 <myrna...@aol.com> wrote:
>That's not the scientific method. It has no explanation for what causes some
>berries to be good and others to be poisonous. It takes more than trial and
>error and passing on the results to qualify as the scientific method.
The second result from Google for "define:scientific method":
The approach science uses to gain knowledge. This method
tries to be unbias and neutral. Involves inductive and
deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing and falsification,
and predictive model testing.
Ivan Voras
>>>kind of crank or gear lever. How the water turns into steam or what air
>>>molecules are or density or energy or any other underlying science, just
>>>that RESULTS, the technological benefits from the use of steam.
>>
>>How does that differ from "the scientific process"? There are hypotheses,
>>experimentation, and confirmation.
>>
>
> The lack of any search for an explanation for the observed phenomenon. Seeing
> an effect and looking for a way to practically use the effect without ever
> considering what could have caused the effect is not science. It's invention.
Well, yes, but at some point (probably early on) somebody would have
thought of "observing" just how much water, what temperature and
size/shape of the pot gives the best result (e.g. lifts the lid higher).
Such knowledge might be tabulised at first, but probably someone would
soon find out it can be expressed as an (crude) equation. Is this the
point "science" is born (according to the OP)?
Or maybe it's this: through my early education I remember hating the
"equations with letters", meaning equations with general terms instead
of raw numbers. Later, ofcourse, I find that exactly that "abstract" way
of thinking and solving is the key. So, science might be born when
someone notices something like that "this line I just drew on my paper"
can be used to abstract a whole "class of lines", using "y=ax+b".
Keith Morrison
>> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>> For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments designed
>> to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for publicizing
>> and discussing those results with the intent of getting true answers.
>
>Presuming (not concluding) that the Romans had not so much "science" as you
>define, it could get up to steam power.
Further than that. Much further Light bulbs were basically trial and
error. While there was experimentation, there wasn't the necessity
into research as to why some things worked better than others or other
things didn't work at all.
I think that's the critical thing about science. It's not only
determining the result of an experiment but an interest in why that
result happened.
And the process continues today. You know that guy who's been on a
quest for ages to build the grizzly-proof suit, and for testing
purposes (and as publicity stunts) he's been hit by trucks, logs,
picks, swords, axes and all sorts of other things? Well, when he
realized his suits weren't up to dealing with fires, he set out on a
quest to create a new fire-resistant material. And he has. It's a
secret mix of ingredients (but one is Diet Coke) that's the end result
of his semi-random mixing experiments that creates a clay which is
remarkably heat resistant, surpassing commercially available material.
His on-camera stunt for this material is putting on a hockey helmet
coated with the material and sitting for ten minutes with a cutting
torch aimed at one spot on his head.
Thing is, he has no idea how the stuff works. It just does.
Theoretically, he could go into large scale commercial production,
using it as a construction material for increased fire resistance, and
not have the faintest idea how or why it does what it does.
--
Keith
Nancy Lebovitz
Bradford Holden <hol...@oddjob.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>
>> When I wrote that, I realized that I didn't know much about Soviet science.
>> There's Lysenko on the one hand, and Sputnik on the other.
>>
>> I don't know how much of Soviet accomplishment was the result of importing
>> scientific knowledge from elsewhere.
>
>Snide comments about Soviet biology aside, the math chemistry and
>physics that came out of the Soviet Union was excellent. Arguably,
>the largest barrier to advancement was not the quality of their
>science but rather the quality of their technology. Scientists
>ruthlessly exploit any new advance that could help them answer a
>question. In effect, the process of moving a scientific advance in
>the lab into a technology advance is self-amplifying. As the
>technology gets better, the experiments get more sophisticated, the
>analysis more subtle and the exchange of views happens more quickly
>(thus bringing advances to everyone in the field). Because the
>Soviet Union had such a terrible technical base in, say, electronics,
>their scientists were really hampered in many fields. They made up
>for it many clever ways but it was a losing proposition in the long
>run.
Even their biology wasn't all bad--I've got a book called _The Body
Electric_ which says that the Soviets were investigating the electrical
fields around living things when Western scientists weren't.
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy gas price"
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
Nancy Lebovitz
>In article <DanSc.285$qp5.1...@monger.newsread.com>,
>Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix5.netaxs.com> wrote:
>>In article <tdcjh0prq2vs2bb27...@4ax.com>,
>>Bryan Derksen <bryan....@shaw-spamguard.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>I read an interesting discussion a while back in which someone
>>>speculated that the cultures of the Star Wars universe had pretty much
>>>lost the ability to do science, and even engineering for the most
>>
>>Here's a scary one--can people forget science, even without droids?
>>There's a chilling bit in one of Feynman's story collections about
>>him visiting somewhere in Latin America where the educators (can't
>>remember whether it included the scientists) thought that science
>>consisted entirely of memorization and replication of experiments.
>
> Can individual people forget the scientific method? Sure. The anecdote
>supports that, and many people don't learn it well in the first place.
>But that's not really the question, is it?
> Can a civilization lose technology? Yes, but it's harder. Some island
>populations in Polynesia lost agricultural techniques (or all agriculture)
>and/or shipbuilding. Europe lost concrete after the fall of the Roman
>Empire, which is strange because the Europeans really could have used it.
Can civilizations lose basic concepts as distinct from technology?
I suspect so--maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the modern
world is nearly as good at public buildings as any number of past
civilizations were.
> >Most people seem to think the story is funny--oooh, those silly
>>Latin Americans! I believe that we're all fellow humans, and we
>>can make the same mistakes. Also, there's a C.S. Lewis bit about
>>how nothing people do is going to see inevitable improvement. His
>>example was representational painting--it kept gettting better
>>for centuries....and then photography was invented (shades of those
>>droids) and people lost interest.
>
> Almost, but not quite (I happen to be in an Art History class at the
>moment, so this is in the front of my mind). Representationalism goes in
>and out of style over the years and in different places; both Roman and
>Renaissance art features plenty of competent representational pieces, but
>with a large gap between them. Classical Greek art was more idealized
>than representational, but you'll see considerable abstraction between the
>Greek and Roman eras, too. But if C.S. Lewis is giving an arguement at
>the 'shooting your mouth off in a pub' level of accuracy, yeah, that's
>just fine.
I don't have Lewis' text handy, but I chose "for centuries" deliberately--
I wasn't thinking the whole of human history. What I had in mind was
medieval art (which to a casual glance shows a steady increase in
competence) followed by Renaissance and Baroque.
Nancy Lebovitz
>>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>>For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments
>>designed to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for
>>publicizing and discussing those results with the intent of getting
>>true answers.
>
>systems/indexing, sailing navigation/ships that could reach Africa
>(maybe Americas), sophisticated ceramics, astronomical prediction,
>metallurgy, etc.
I was thinking about China as the best bet. The next question is how
far they could have gotten if they hadn't had contact with the west.
Erik Max Francis
> Thing is, he has no idea how the stuff works. It just does.
> Theoretically, he could go into large scale commercial production,
> using it as a construction material for increased fire resistance, and
> not have the faintest idea how or why it does what it does.
I think there's a number of different kinds of what people might call
"science" being banded about here. Certainly you can have science where
you don't understand the underlying cause of whatever it is you're
studying! The pharmaceutical industry proceeds like this most of the
time, where they're using compounds that they've gotten from various
sources and for the most part don't really know what mechanisms cause
them to do what they do (these are often researched, but often after the
drug has gone into prodution!).
But it's certainly the case that a great deal of science goes into
figuring out which drugs work and which ones don't, as well as what side
effects they can cause. Even for someone engaging in what amounts to
trial and error, there are still some processes at work -- this seemed
to be a little better, this seemed to be a little worse, this worked
much better but had other undesired effects, etc.
However crude, there are still hypothesize-observe-revise processes
going on here, which are the cornerstone of science. They're just not
being consciously presented that way.
--
__ Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Keith Morrison
>>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>>For purposes of this discussion, science is both experiments
>>designed to yield relevent unamibiguous results, and a system for
>>publicizing and discussing those results with the intent of getting
>>true answers.
>
>15th century China: clocks, water power, explosives, good roads, filing
>systems/indexing, sailing navigation/ships that could reach Africa
>(maybe Americas), sophisticated ceramics, astronomical prediction,
>metallurgy, etc.
The sailing ship thing was European as well. Ships in general
actually demonstrate how you can get a highly complex, sophisticated
piece of equipment and not be sure about how or why it does what it
does. HMS Victory, as one example, had to carry a large permanent
ballast because it had list to one side that no one had an explanation
for. It was built by highly skilled shipwrights, and they corrected
the problem when it was discovered, but no one knew why it had
happened. The fix worked, the ship operated fine, so that was all
that was required.
And that is true for a lot of things. Aircraft went a long way using
the "let's try this--does it work, yes/no" approach.
--
Keith
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <20040810221701...@mb-m26.aol.com>,
> Myrnag2555 <myrna...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
> >
> >>count as science even if the experiments were good. Neither is Soviet-
> >>style politically controlled science.
>
> I don't know how much of Soviet accomplishment was the result of importing
> scientific knowledge from elsewhere.
Minor spoiler for Martha Wells' Fall of Ile-Rein series
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The bad guys (who have better technology at the start) turn out
to have stolen all of it from their enemies.
--KG
Wayne Throop
:: hypotheses, experimentation, and confirmation.
: Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net>
: It's missing the publication and peer review.
OK. But even in terms of one person working in isolation, the novel
concept in science is to change what you think is going on, rather than
just changing what you try and stretching your theory to fit. That is,
you eventually discard the four-element theory of substances, rather
than just working to come up with ever longer lists of how the four
elements are combined; you eventually discard the notion of epicycles,
rather than just compiling ever-longer lists of them; and so on.
Peer review is just a tool to see that this gets done,
and pubication is just a tool to aid in peer review.
Sort of. Or rather... that's my current working hypothesis.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wesley Struebing
Are Western scientist even investigating yet? I thought those
"fields" were called auras and dismissed as hocum...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Brion K. Lienhart
news:cfdgh9$ir4$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> >Quant Suf.!
>
> I've forgotten my own Classics. Translate, por favor?
I believe that's Classic SF, not "The Classics". IIRC, _The Stars My
Destination_ by Alfred Bester. There are a group of primitives living in a
conglomeration of wrecked spaceships and an old inventory list has become
one of their holy texts.
J.B. Moreno
> Myrnag2555 wrote:
>
> >>>kind of crank or gear lever. How the water turns into steam or what air
> >>>molecules are or density or energy or any other underlying science, just
> >>>that RESULTS, the technological benefits from the use of steam.
> >>
> >>How does that differ from "the scientific process"? There are hypotheses,
> >>experimentation, and confirmation.
> >>
> >
> > The lack of any search for an explanation for the observed phenomenon.
> > Seeing an effect and looking for a way to practically use the effect
> > without ever considering what could have caused the effect is not
> > science. It's invention.
>
> Well, yes, but at some point (probably early on) somebody would have
> thought of "observing" just how much water, what temperature and
> size/shape of the pot gives the best result (e.g. lifts the lid higher).
> Such knowledge might be tabulised at first, but probably someone would
> soon find out it can be expressed as an (crude) equation. Is this the
> point "science" is born (according to the OP)?
No, science is born when you start searching for the answer as to why
the water is turning to steam.
Technology is the answer to the question: how?
Science is the answer to the question: why?
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Acme Diagnostics
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>Keith Morrison wrote:
>
>> Thing is, he has no idea how the stuff works. It just does.
>> Theoretically, he could go into large scale commercial production,
>> using it as a construction material for increased fire resistance, and
>> not have the faintest idea how or why it does what it does.
>
>I think there's a number of different kinds of what people might call
>"science" being banded about here. Certainly you can have science where
>you don't understand the underlying cause of whatever it is you're
>studying! The pharmaceutical industry proceeds like this most of the
>time, where they're using compounds that they've gotten from various
>sources and for the most part don't really know what mechanisms cause
>them to do what they do (these are often researched, but often after the
>drug has gone into prodution!).
>
>But it's certainly the case that a great deal of science goes into
>figuring out which drugs work and which ones don't, as well as what side
>effects they can cause. Even for someone engaging in what amounts to
>trial and error, there are still some processes at work -- this seemed
>to be a little better, this seemed to be a little worse, this worked
>much better but had other undesired effects, etc.
>
>However crude, there are still hypothesize-observe-revise processes
>going on here, which are the cornerstone of science. They're just not
>being consciously presented that way.
Thanks. I was a little thrown off by reading that "trial-and-error"
wasn't science. I always thought that just about everything derived by
rigorous empirical observation (designated observer, default case,
etc.), as opposed to primarily faith or logic, regardless of how
constructed, as science, including trial and error. Perhaps
"theoretical" and "applied" science would be a good distinction.
Larry
J.B. Moreno
> Thanks. I was a little thrown off by reading that "trial-and-error"
> wasn't science. I always thought that just about everything derived by
> rigorous empirical observation (designated observer, default case,
> etc.), as opposed to primarily faith or logic, regardless of how
> constructed, as science, including trial and error. Perhaps
> "theoretical" and "applied" science would be a good distinction.
Trial and error is simply another way of saying "practice" under some
circumstances.
The key difference is what you are trying to produce --- a product, or
an answer?
Science is the discovery of "why", why do things operate the way they
do.
Ken from Chicago
"David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:cfeaua$o9n$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Early on when they were first discovered.
Over time they were reverse engineered to create ships able to make their
own jumppoints, just as Earthgov reverse engineered some of the shadow tech
to use create hybrid Earthshadow ships.
-- Ken from Chicago
David Mitchell
> Early on when they were first discovered.
I thought they bought the technology from the Centauri.
Presumably it came with a manual :-)
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
Damien R. Sullivan
>>
>>Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far as
>>being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to eat and
>>which were poisonous.
>
>That's not the scientific method. It has no explanation for what causes some
>berries to be good and others to be poisonous. It takes more than trial and
"The spirits don't like us eating those foods."
Not a very good "why" by our standards, but consider their resources. And our
"whys" are limited too. Why are the laws of physics what they are? Quantum
mechanics and relativity ultimately boil down to "this is the way things are,
accept it". Theoretical physicists try to push that another level, but even
if they succeed, then "why strings? why membranes?"
>error and passing on the results to qualify as the scientific method.
I think the difference is more one of scale than principle.
There is a principled difference between being willing to revise your beliefs
in the face of evidence and clinging dogmatically to the traditions of the
past, but you could probably find that difference between different members of
a hunter-gatherer tribe.
-xx- Damien X-)
Robert Sneddon
<myrna...@aol.com> writes
The thing that really needed to be invented for steam plant was the
rupture plate[1] -- the pressure relief valve on the boiler could be
(and was) defeated by unscrupulous owners trying to get more work out of
their engine. This led to explosions and deaths in the early days of
steam plant followed by draconian legislation involving licencing and
regular inspections. The same came to apply to large pressure vessels of
all types, like compressed air reservoirs.
[1] A weak plate bolted onto the boiler's pressure chamber, with a
carefully-machined cross scored into the surface. If the boiler's
pressure gets too large the plate ruptures releasing the steam
(hopefully in a safe direction).
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Ken from Chicago
"David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.12....@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
The younger races in general. I think the Minbari were the first to reverse
engineer the technology of the jumpgate builders.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
In that sense yes, the both are the same. It's just the question was asked
how technology could be different from science. Technological development
would be limited to the "practical", the EFFECTS, the "abstract", the CAUSE
wouldn't be studied for anything beyond how to improve the effect.
It becomes blurry if you have a real industrious engineer trying to
revolutionize some technology by rethinking the processes involved as
opposed to a studious mechanic trying to evolve the technology by slowly
tweaking and making gradual improvements.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote in message
news:1gidlxl.u76sg6a5hcuxN%pl...@newsreaders.com...
Natch it becomes very gray when someone figures the best to improve HOW
something is done is by understanding WHY something is done. The Ends are
practical tho the Means are abstract.
-- Ken from Chicago
Bryan J. Maloney
larblortch news:411ae5f9$0$40803$45be...@newscene.com:
> Thanks. I was a little thrown off by reading that "trial-and-error"
> wasn't science. I always thought that just about everything derived by
> rigorous empirical observation (designated observer, default case,
> etc.), as opposed to primarily faith or logic, regardless of how
> constructed, as science, including trial and error. Perhaps
> "theoretical" and "applied" science would be a good distinction.
If no theory is derived from the trial and error, it is not science. What
is "applied" in an "applied" science? THEORY is "applied". Without
hypothesis/testing/derivation of theory, there is no science.
Mark Fergerson
An excellently appropriate reference for this thread, in
fact.
IIRC the actual phrase was "Quant Suff, Quant Suff!" (the
extra f should tickle a few more memories), the warcry of
Bester's The Scientific People (in TSMD?). ISTR it's Latin
that roughly means "Quantity Sufficient" and is the
chemist's expression for "enough water to make (whatever
total quantity of mixture you needed to begin with)". Any
chemists around?
Mark L. Fergerson
Mark Fergerson
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>>> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>
>
>> Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far
>> as being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to eat
>> and which were poisonous.
>
>
> Yes, but does "You! Weakling! Eat these funny-looking berries!" really
> count as an experiment?
Seemed to work in Ringo Starr's _Caveman_.
Notice this technique was imposed on Ringo's "weakling"
character by the tribal leader "strongman" character, and
that Ringo's eventual overthrow of the strongman wasn't
based on scientific technique at all, but lust.
Mark L. Fergerson
Bernard Peek
<nu...@biz.ness> writes
>chemists around?
Some people with dispensary experience anyway.
It's all changed now. You won't find pharmacists making up their own
potions any more.
--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money.
Bernard Peek
<dsi...@canada.com> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>>> How far do you think technology could be developed without science?
>
>> Not at all, without the scientific method we wouldn't have got as far
>>as being able to reliably tell which nuts and berries were good to
>>eat and which were poisonous.
>
>Yes, but does "You! Weakling! Eat these funny-looking berries!" really
>count as an experiment?
Not by itself. But deliberately taking them to find out whether they are
poisonous certainly does.
David Wright Sr.
news:Xns95434D35A7...@206.141.193.32:
IMHO, you are equating two separate but partially related issues;
'Science' vs 'Scientific Method'
Source: http://www.yourdictionary.com
Scientific Method:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and
demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for
scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of
phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena,
experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis,
and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
Science:
1 a. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such
activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such
activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
(Skip irrelevant definitions 2 and 3)
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
While definition #1 of Science does match exactly with the definition of
Scientific Method, #4 is also a common use of the word. So yes, there
can be Science without the 'hypothesis/testing/derivation of theory'.
This probably constituted the entire field of 'Science' before the
development of 'The Scientific Method'.
--
David Wright
Heinlein Award & Dinner
Friday, September 3, 2004 at Noreascon 4
http://heinleinsociety.org/specialoffers/dinnerreservations.html
If you haven't joined the Society, Why Not?
http://heinleinsociety.org/join.html
Keep Up with the Latest
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/updates.html
Benefit The Heinlein Society by ordering books thru
http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein-amazon.htm
Acme Diagnostics
Yes, I've heard that. I've also read that science is the process of
performing experiments so that other experiments may be performed, and
others. These may be good definitions, but I think they are narrow
definitions suited to narrow contexts, and that more expansive
definitions are legitimate and useful in more expanded contexts.
Perhaps you could help me list the distinctions between "empiricism"
and "science," where the distinctions would apply in every case. I
define empiricism as testing facts by observation. So far, I have that
"science" is more rigorous *in every case* in two respects:
1. Assumes default case or null hypothesis.
2. Designated observers. Perhaps I should add "qualified" observers.
Larry
Nancy Lebovitz
>:: How does that differ from "the scientific process"? There are
>:: hypotheses, experimentation, and confirmation.
>
>: Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net>
>: It's missing the publication and peer review.
>
>OK. But even in terms of one person working in isolation, the novel
>concept in science is to change what you think is going on, rather than
>just changing what you try and stretching your theory to fit. That is,
That's nicely put.
>you eventually discard the four-element theory of substances, rather
>than just working to come up with ever longer lists of how the four
>elements are combined; you eventually discard the notion of epicycles,
>rather than just compiling ever-longer lists of them; and so on.
>
>Peer review is just a tool to see that this gets done,
>and pubication is just a tool to aid in peer review.
>
>Sort of. Or rather... that's my current working hypothesis.
Nonetheless, I'm taking it that it's hard enough for people to
be flexible and intelligent about their theories that peer review
is an essential part of the process.
Part of why I raised the question in the first place was to look
at how much could get invented--if the results of experiments aren't
made public *somehow*, less is going to get invented.
Nancy Lebovitz
Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>>Danny Sichel <dsi...@canada.com> writes:
>
>>> Yes, but does "You! Weakling! Eat these funny-looking berries!" really
>>> count as an experiment?
>>
>
>As much as "You! Rat! Eat this funny chemical!"
>
>Actually, Bernd Heinrich described ravens doing something similar. Low status
>ravens get first pick at a dubious corpse. If they don't keel over, or if it
>doesn't wake up and eat them, they get driven off by the high status ravens.
I'll impressed, but I'll be more impressed if the low status ravens keel
over on purpose, then finish the corpse when the high status ravens leave.
Nancy Lebovitz
_The Botany of Desire_ by Michael Pollan has somewhat about modern
marijuana growing. Law enforcement has forced marijuana growing indoors,
and quite a lot has been figured out about how to maximize yield by
controlling lighting, temperature, carbon dioxide and a couple of
other factors that I don't remember. The book said that they're
getting 25% THC from the plants, though I admit that sounds kind
of high.
Aside from the implications for sf (food on spaceships and for planetwide
cities, though getting rid of heat is, as always, a big problem), it's
an amazing example of non-institutional research.
My current theory is that such things can happen if there's incremental
reward--it's not too hard to tweak things and make them better. I suspect
there are some technologies (nuclear?) in which it's just too expensive
for small organizations to get into the game.
Bernard Peek
<pl...@newsreaders.com> writes
No, I don't think that's quite the essence of it. I think that science
is the discovery of what things will do.
That is it seeks to predict what the result of an activity will be
before actually carrying it out. Discovering why is a side-effect of
this.
Bernard Peek
<na...@unix5.netaxs.com> writes
>_The Botany of Desire_ by Michael Pollan has somewhat about modern
>marijuana growing. Law enforcement has forced marijuana growing indoors,
>and quite a lot has been figured out about how to maximize yield by
>controlling lighting, temperature, carbon dioxide and a couple of
>other factors that I don't remember. The book said that they're
>getting 25% THC from the plants, though I admit that sounds kind
>of high.
>
>Aside from the implications for sf (food on spaceships and for planetwide
>cities, though getting rid of heat is, as always, a big problem), it's
>an amazing example of non-institutional research.
Hmmm. I wonder whether humans have a lower metabolism when they are
stoned? One way of handling the long trip to Mars would be to include
high-yield marijuana in the hydroponics. It might not only reduce the
oxygen demand but it could reduce the subjective duration of the voyage
without relativistic speeds.
I do like elegant solutions.
Dreamer
"Bernard Peek" <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in message
news:nWoi6EQV...@shrdlu.com...
How fast do humans metabolize oxygen compared to a fire's consumption rate,
even a little one? Honest question, I don't know. If the answer is, "Not as
fast," you lost the first advantage. :)
Obviously, there are other ways to use marijuana than to smoke it - smoking
might be a bad idea on a spaceship for a variety of reasons. But if you're
going to do that, why not just take the THC straight?
D
Bill Snyder
If they're going to have the munchies all the time, you'll *need*
efficient hydroponics. Even if Rutan comes through, I doubt that
Domino's will deliver past LEO.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Wayne Throop
: Perhaps you could help me list the distinctions between "empiricism"
: and "science," where the distinctions would apply in every case. I
: define empiricism as testing facts by observation. So far, I have that
: "science" is more rigorous *in every case* in two respects:
:
: 1. Assumes default case or null hypothesis.
: 2. Designated observers. Perhaps I should add "qualified" observers.
Interesting. To me, the difference between science and empericism
is what you're trying to refine by each trial. In empiricism, you
are "checking facts". In science, you are checking theories.
Well. The boundary between the two can get fuzzy,
but to me that's the key distinguishing characteristic.
"What would you consider to be the distinguishing
characteristics of a rabbit?"
"Duh, dis-ting-wish-ing char-ac-ter-ist-ic, George?"
"Yeah, what is it that *makes* a rabbit a rabbit?"
--- Daffy Duck to Abominable Snowman
(from memory, hence not exact quote)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
J.B. Moreno
> J.B. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> writes
> >Acme Diagnostics <LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks. I was a little thrown off by reading that "trial-and-error"
> >> wasn't science. I always thought that just about everything derived by
> >> rigorous empirical observation (designated observer, default case,
> >> etc.), as opposed to primarily faith or logic, regardless of how
> >> constructed, as science, including trial and error. Perhaps
> >> "theoretical" and "applied" science would be a good distinction.
> >
> >Trial and error is simply another way of saying "practice" under some
> >circumstances.
> >
> >The key difference is what you are trying to produce --- a product, or
> >an answer?
> >
> >Science is the discovery of "why", why do things operate the way they
> >do.
>
> No, I don't think that's quite the essence of it. I think that science
> is the discovery of what things will do.
You can't really understand what things will do without understanding
why they do the things they do.
> That is it seeks to predict what the result of an activity will be
> before actually carrying it out. Discovering why is a side-effect of
> this.
And I think you have it reversed -- the search for "why" yields "what"
as a bonus, and "what" can be used as both a crosscheck to make sure
that you have the correct "why", and as a means of uncoveriing the
"why". But if all you have is "what" then you have knowledge, not
science.
Science is predictive -- once you understand the "why", you know what
the "what" will be.
J.B. Moreno
> "J.B. Moreno" <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote in message
> > Ivan Voras <ivoras@__geri.cc.fer.hr> wrote:
-snip-
> > > Well, yes, but at some point (probably early on) somebody would have
> > > thought of "observing" just how much water, what temperature and
> > > size/shape of the pot gives the best result (e.g. lifts the lid higher).
> > > Such knowledge might be tabulised at first, but probably someone would
> > > soon find out it can be expressed as an (crude) equation. Is this the
> > > point "science" is born (according to the OP)?
> >
> > No, science is born when you start searching for the answer as to why
> > the water is turning to steam.
> >
> > Technology is the answer to the question: how?
> > Science is the answer to the question: why?
> >
>
> Natch it becomes very gray when someone figures the best to improve HOW
> something is done is by understanding WHY something is done. The Ends are
> practical tho the Means are abstract.
No, that just means that some science was involved in developing the
technology -- which isn't strange at all, because as it happens, knowing
why something happens gives you better control when making it happen.
Acme Diagnostics
I like that better. But doesn't logic also satisfy that, for instance
self-proving pure logic and math? Don't we need to add observation to
distinguish science? It seems I may just be obfuscating terms. If you
think so, just ignore.
I've distinguished "faith" from both science and logic by the test
"things that apparently work." Your "what things will do" and "results
of an activity" seem pretty close to that. I'd like to be more sure of
the distinction between science and pure logic. I say "pure" because I
understand that logic is used in science, but I think observation is
the ultimate test of fact, not logic.
Larry
George W. Harris
:> No, I don't think that's quite the essence of it. I think that science
:> is the discovery of what things will do.
:
:You can't really understand what things will do without understanding
:why they do the things they do.
That simply isn't true. Newton's _Principia_
did an excellent job of explaining the what of
gravitation without even addressing the why.
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Acme Diagnostics
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> "Acme Diagnostics" <LFinez...@partpostmark.net>
>> Perhaps you could help me list the distinctions between "empiricism"
>> and "science," where the distinctions would apply in every case. I
>> define empiricism as testing facts by observation. So far, I have that
>> "science" is more rigorous *in every case* in two respects:
>>
>> 1. Assumes default case or null hypothesis.
>> 2. Designated observers. Perhaps I should add "qualified" observers.
>
>Interesting. To me, the difference between science and empericism
>is what you're trying to refine by each trial. In empiricism, you
>are "checking facts". In science, you are checking theories.
Thanks. That's completely new to me so I'll have to give it much
thought.
One thing occurs, perhaps related. When I run a computer program to
"observe" the results on the screen, I can obviously be checking logic.
I could be checking a theory about which program design would be
best (like fastest for instance), and I can imagine other theories. I
think I could be checking a fact, e.g. to see if a certain computer job
at another location was completed, or like there were three of
something in inventory and decide by the "screen" observation that it
doesn't contradict known facts also incorporated in the program.
>Well. The boundary between the two can get fuzzy,
>but to me that's the key distinguishing characteristic.
>
> "What would you consider to be the distinguishing
> characteristics of a rabbit?"
>
> "Duh, dis-ting-wish-ing char-ac-ter-ist-ic, George?"
>
> "Yeah, what is it that *makes* a rabbit a rabbit?"
>
> --- Daffy Duck to Abominable Snowman
> (from memory, hence not exact quote)
Daffy is my very all-time favorite toon character!
Daffy to Granny in "People are Phoney" trying to win the prize
by doing a good deed: "Help you across the street mam?"
Granny (smacks with umbrella): "Get your hands off me you young
whippersnapper!"
Larry