4 ms·

> Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove science much more than vice versa. You're just making a blanket statement with out p

> Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove science much more than vice versa. You're just making a blanket statement with out providing a detailed supporting narative. For example: you mention agricultural production - What is the comparative improvement achieved in 3000 years of say Human agrarian trial and error vs. what was made possible by Gregor Mandel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel) and Modern genetics in the 20th century?

eru 11y ago
I'd hope Wikipedia would provide that supporting narrative. Science is awesome---but I don't see how even if the improvements since 1900 would dwarf any improvements before would have any bearing on my argument that `throughout most history, the causation was reversed.' Those are two completely independent observations. In any case, it might be instructive to look at "Productivity improving technologies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technologies_(economic_history) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technol...) and see how they enabled science vs were enabled by science. Containerization of sea trade is one of my favourite topics there. It's a huge productivity improver----but science played little role in its introduction and success. On the other hand, the Green Revolution is an example for the successful application of science to technology. Also, the Haber-Bosch-Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process). Many of us wouldn't be alive today if not for these two developments. As an aside on Mendel: his data looks too good on some measures. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy)

eru 11y ago

I'd hope Wikipedia would provide that supporting narrative. Science is awesome---but I don't see how even if the improvements since 1900 would dwarf any improvements before would have any bearing on my argument that `throughout most history, the causation was reversed.' Those are two completely independent observations. In any case, it might be instructive to look at "Productivity improving technologies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technologies_(economic_history) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technol...) and see how they enabled science vs were enabled by science. Containerization of sea trade is one of my favourite topics there. It's a huge productivity improver----but science played little role in its introduction and success. On the other hand, the Green Revolution is an example for the successful application of science to technology. Also, the Haber-Bosch-Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process). Many of us wouldn't be alive today if not for these two developments. As an aside on Mendel: his data looks too good on some measures. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy)