Science And Technology Since The 1920s, Social Implications

Evolution Of Science And Technology Since The 1920s,
And Its Social Implications

I posit that the nature of the evolution of science and technology since the 1920s has been the most significant molding factor of the present characteristics of our society, and that it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution.


A.

Science and technology are clearly and distinctly two separate faculties, separate branches of learning and teaching. Yet since the 1920s the titles of these different faculties appear inseperably jointly everywhere.

B.

Why is it that since the 1920s technology has been evolving dynamically whereas basic science has been progressing at ever decreasing rate?

C.

And what have been and what are the social implications of this evolution and of the present state of science and technology?

D.

Definitions of terms for the subject of this thread:

Science: state of knowledge attained by systematized studies and tests through established scientific methods.

Technology: capability of and manner of practical application of knowledge.


Dov Henis

HenisDov quote.

I would say BOTH have grown at an exponential rate since the '20's. The public's understanding of science is what has lagged behind. And I would place the blame largely on the established religious agenda to undermine science in the false hope that that will somehow bolster belief in religions. There is strong backlash against this obvious agenda, as evidenced by the Ben Stein film, "Expelled." When will the sheep wake up?

Definitions of terms for the subject of this thread:

Science: state of knowledge attained by systematized studies and tests through established scientific methods.

Technology: capability of and manner of practical application of knowledge science!

I completely agree with the part before what I quoted. I only partially agree with this part. Remember, people become evangelical preachers because they're more charismatic (In my experience, they hate that word, so call em that whenever you can ) than most. Them preachers become heads of big churches because they're even more charismatic than yer average preacher. Then they start tv shows, and the ones that do the best are the ones who are even more charismatic than the others on tv! The end result is, you get people who are masters of influencing other folks' opinions doin the talkin fer religion.
So why do I disagree?
Because this trends holds true for actors, too. And for pundits. An' even news anchors.
Not so much, for scientists, tho.
When it comes to scientists, it seems like their degree is all it takes to get them their 15 minutes. They just start saying something some people like or something some people don't like, and there's a tv show or a news agency that'll put em on the air. Or they write themselves a book, and enough science nerds like us read that book that Oprah interviews him or her. There fact is, the thing that determines a scientist's ability to show up in the public eye is his or her ability to do groundbreaking work, or to write well. Like Einstein for the former or Dawkins for the latter. They don't get the easily flabbergasted and poor speaking scientists culled from the ranks before they hit the airwaves. So what you get is a religious front that's talented in the area most important to spreading public knowledge, and a scientific front that has folks from all over the gamut. From Carl Sagan's beautiful speaches about the mysteries of the cosmos to Richard Dawkins awkward stumbling when he realized his interviewer was a fundie.
Then you figure all the PR and ad firms workin for churches and religious organizations. Most of them scientists are too principled to hire them. So the religion gets advertised out the wazoo, while the science just gets more and more complex, with no extra advertising to accompany it.
End result is, when it comes to getting the public's attention, the religious fundies are working for it.
The scientists are just lamenting their lack of it.

Oh I know, let's hope the backlash outshines the initial surge of dumb fundies it'll inspire. That seems to be the rational folk's best strategy at this point: Attack the fundie's hypocrisy and lies. Weird, isn't it? In the battle between science and religion, science would be best served by comparing it's moral character to the religious character. Oh, irony....

This post has been edited by MjolnirPants on May 22 2008, 02:01 PM

photojack and MjolnirPants,

- My statement "Why is it that since the 1920s...basic science has been progressing at ever decreasing rate?" is based on my long personal experience with life sciences. It is specifically about basic non-applied research and derives from many years of close follow-up of professional science periodicals.

- I do not have current or historical figures of extents of basic versus applied research. I do remember, though, 2006 NSF figures in the United States: basic R&D in 2006 made up slightly less than 20 percent of the total R&D, applied research made up a little more than 20 percent, and 60 percent was development R&D. This is drawn from memory, but without any idea how the "extents" where measured.

- IMO the observations in the opening post of this thread are factual and correct and the statement "... the nature of the evolution of science and technology since the 1920s has been the most significant molding factor of the present characteristics of our society..." is correct and true to life.

- And IMO "...it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution".


Dov Henis

PS: and it is frustrating that religion is dragged into this issue. this matter and issue has nothing to do with religion. it stands on its own nature and merit...

Dov

It is often the case that technology proceeds science. Thermodynamics was driven by the steam engine and the goal of creating a more efficient engine.

I read in a history of science text book that the majority of the time technology preceeds science, although it was a long time ago and I can't remember more examples off the top of my head.

What do ya consider "progress" in this regards?
Why doesn't the finalizing of quantum mechanics, the genesis of string theory, the discovery of DNA and all them other advances since then count for less than all the progress before the 20's?
An what experience? Are you a backwoods redneck drivin a pickup truck or maybe a tenured professor of physics at MIT? One of them don't have much experience with the "progress" of science. The other does.

Then why would you immediately post what looks like that kinda info? Yer startin to look a little... well... dumb to me.

IMO the statement "most of the folks on this forum are dumber than a box of rocks" is factually accurate. That don't mean it's actually factually accurate. An opinion is an opinion, son.

Got any evidence to support this?

Obviously, you never heard a preacher whine about how evolution is destroyin our christian values, then. Or more likely you just don't wanna talk about it cause you didn't think of it first...

Societal Implications Of Technology's Piling Over Science


PS:

- I do not have current or historical figures of extents of basic versus applied research. I do remember, though, 2006 NSF figures in the United States: basic R&D in 2006 made up slightly less than 20 percent of the total R&D, applied research made up a little more than 20 percent, and 60 percent was industrial development R&D. This is drawn from my memory, and without knowledge how the "extents" where measured.

- IMO the observations in the opening post of this thread are factual and correct and the statement "... the nature of the evolution of science and technology since the 1920s has been the most significant molding factor of the present characteristics of our society..." is correct and true to life.

Since the 1920s Technology development has been THE TOOL of capital formation and accumulation together with their inherent social and societal values, attitudes and life style and even together with their inherent personal and social ethics.

Basic, non-applied science, since the 18th century Enlightenment the banner of social and societal evolution out of entrenched traditional doctrines and values, has been abandoned and presently barely survives in few institutions. Enlightenment's
inherent philosophy and attitudes in regards to individualism, universal human progress and the applications of reason have been squeezed out of the western culture highway by the ever rising flood of values, attitudes and texture of life of the technology era.

- And IMO "...it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution".


Dov Henis

I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you here. The technology always follows after the relevant science. The focus of research can be determined by a desire for a particular technology/improvement, but the technology cannot be built until after the science is discovered.

To use the example of a steam engine, the relevant science needed to build one is that 'steam in a container produces pressure' (as can easily be seen by any fool with a pot and a lid, so we could even simplify it even more, to 'steam in a container pushes on the lid'). They had a desire to design a more efficient engine, but the technology could not actually be constructed until after a more detailed understanding of thermodynamics was understood (the next step in building a more efficient steam engine was the cornish boiler, which relies on the simple fact that rate of heat transfer is proportional to surface area).

Therefore I would have to disagree with the original post that science is lagging behind technology. Since the technology cannot be built until the science is discovered, it is logically impossible for science to lag behind technology.

"The original post":

- Deals with the different RATES OF EVOLUTION of science and technology since the 1920s.

- The RATE of evolution of science is, IMO, lagging very very much behind that of technology.

- Technology evolution since the 1920s has been and still is also a "technology culture evolution", comprising mostly ever increasing life improvements and comforts.

- "Universal human progress and the applications of reason" are definitely not parameters contributed to society by the technology culture; they evolve only from further comprehension of our nature and function in the universe, i.e. from further science evolution.

- The terms science and technology appear mostly together in our present technology culture in order to lend technology the weight and reverence rightly due science; this is done deliberately, with the cooperation of the obedient ear-drilled scientists servants (Exodus 21:6), to blurr the distinction between science and technology, to commend most public funds to technology while suppressing funds to science, i.e. to enhance and maintain the acclaimed supreme technology culture.

- And IMO "...it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution", to analyse and assess the societal-social implication of the bare survival of basic research, of further comprehending our place in the universe.


Dov Henis

If that is the case (and I'm not convinced it is), then it must be that science was sufficiently far ahead, and it is only within the last 90 years that technology has managed to catch up. I don't think this is the case, since many (most?) of the new technologies since the 1920's have been due to advances made in sciences. Airplanes, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Stealth, Microwaves, Colour TV, Etc.

Can you give a list of inventions/improvements which did not arise from a recent development in the sciences?

Another way to look at it might be that between 1850 and 1950, there were some major revolutions in scientific thought: Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, among others. Then from the 1920's onwards, we have been applying these new sciences, and producing technologies from them.

The general understanding or public understanding of Science lags behind the technology however (IMO) Science at the cutting edge is always ahead.

That's why your average car mechanic might be able to take your car apart and put it back together, but do they understand the chemical make up of the Tyre's?
Do they understand the developmental process that lead to the latest hybrid engine?
I would stick my neck out and say no.

Pre 1920s science "was sufficiently far ahead..." For What ?

Ahead for what?

For further fueling-feeding the Technology Culture?

For comprehending our nature, our place and function in the universe?

For continuing our present variety of domestic and foreign policies?

Are we sure that the present Technology Culture is the culture we want to reign supreme from now on forever?

THIS IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD...


Dov Henis

Sufficiently far ahead to allow the advances in technology. The major scientific revolutions came before the major technological changes. Relativity must come before GPS, particle physics before nuclear reactors, etc.

Cause: Major scientific breakthroughs in the late 1800's/early 1900's.

Effect: Major technological advances in the early/mid 1900's.

The current rate of technological progress is only possible because of the preceding rate of scientific progress.

Edit: And if, as you claim, the current rate of scientific progress is fairly stagnant (which as far as I know it isn't), then we would expect the rate of technological progress to stagnate in the next few decades.

This post has been edited by NeoDevin on May 27 2008, 10:34 PM

Typically, it's merely your misinformed opinion, completely ignoring any facts.

Science Will Never Be "Sufficient"

SCIENCE may never and will never be "sufficient" for anything.
Science is as extensive and as evolving and as expanding as the universe is.

We are what we decide to be, and for electing what to be some of us want to know the nature of our essentiality and our place and function in the universe; science will never be sufficient for this but our continuous endless quest, science, is an inherent human characteristic...

Dov Henis