3 ms·

When you point to point to your computer, you are confusing a 'Technology' with Science. They are different. As for first principles, starting with Francis Baco

When you point to point to your computer, you are confusing a 'Technology' with Science. They are different. As for first principles, starting with Francis Bacon's Baconian method is the investigative method that would benefit here: [1] "Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked." Thus we see that predictive is less important than reproducibility, which is currently in this era approaching a crisis point. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

asabjorn 8y ago
I agree reproducibility is an issue, especially in psychology that is slowly becoming a science right now. There it’s actially a good sign, since now psychology has a methodology we can use as a standard bearer to spot issues. In other humanities that like to call themselves science we unfortunately even lack such a methodology. From first principles technology is definitely applied science through engineering, but technology is progressed through pushing the boundaries of science and science is the map of where to look. Eg quantum mechanics and optics helped create a map of where to look for new nano scale technology innovations. Technolofy shows the reproducibility of the theories it’s build upon. The computer is build by innovations created using the predictive powers of material science, quantum mechanics and chemistry. How do you think the optics used to create the processors were created? The advanced etching technologies to get to decreasing nm processor scale? Materials that respond reliably to store energy in batteries or power puxels in your screen?
dwaltrip 8y ago
Technology and science are recursively interdependent. They are very much not simply "different" things. Due to this layered interdependence, the computer is in fact a shining example of scientific achievement just as much as it is one of technological advancement.
- icelancer 8y ago
  Science is a method. It is very different than Technology.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    Yes, they are different, but they are also deeply connected. Science requires tools, which technology provides. New discoveries and understanding then enable new tech and new tools, which allows for new science, and so on and so forth.
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    It is as different as dropping a stone is not physics. One drops a stone and it follows the laws physics predicts, and with physics you can make more accurate predictions of complex systems. The laws would still be there without physics, but our tools and capability to manipulate them would be greatly diminished. It is actually a bit intellectually lazy to use literary critical theory To critique things outside literature, because it is obvious it has no explanatory power outside the subjective reading of a book.

asabjorn 8y ago

I agree reproducibility is an issue, especially in psychology that is slowly becoming a science right now. There it’s actially a good sign, since now psychology has a methodology we can use as a standard bearer to spot issues. In other humanities that like to call themselves science we unfortunately even lack such a methodology. From first principles technology is definitely applied science through engineering, but technology is progressed through pushing the boundaries of science and science is the map of where to look. Eg quantum mechanics and optics helped create a map of where to look for new nano scale technology innovations. Technolofy shows the reproducibility of the theories it’s build upon. The computer is build by innovations created using the predictive powers of material science, quantum mechanics and chemistry. How do you think the optics used to create the processors were created? The advanced etching technologies to get to decreasing nm processor scale? Materials that respond reliably to store energy in batteries or power puxels in your screen?

dwaltrip 8y ago

Technology and science are recursively interdependent. They are very much not simply "different" things. Due to this layered interdependence, the computer is in fact a shining example of scientific achievement just as much as it is one of technological advancement.

icelancer 8y ago
Science is a method. It is very different than Technology.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Yes, they are different, but they are also deeply connected. Science requires tools, which technology provides. New discoveries and understanding then enable new tech and new tools, which allows for new science, and so on and so forth.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  It is as different as dropping a stone is not physics. One drops a stone and it follows the laws physics predicts, and with physics you can make more accurate predictions of complex systems. The laws would still be there without physics, but our tools and capability to manipulate them would be greatly diminished. It is actually a bit intellectually lazy to use literary critical theory To critique things outside literature, because it is obvious it has no explanatory power outside the subjective reading of a book.