There is also a historical difference between science and technology.
Science can be seen as developed out of philosophy, while technology has
strong roots in crafts and workmanship. By the classic Greeks, craftsmanship
was seen as a kind of (slave)labor and was held in low regard compared with
the higher activities of the mind. This stance continued with the values of
Christianity and still influences the general mindset today, as we can see
by the different amount of interest there is, including in philosophy, for
technology compared with `pure science'. As Schön noted:
The greater one's proximity to basic science, as a rule, the higher one's
academic status. General, theoretical, propositional knowledge enjoys a
privileged position. [Schön1988a: 9]
Since then that status difference diminished a little, one can observe a growing
interest in practice, the recent increased amount of activities in the area
of philosophy of technology can be seen as a measure. However now also other
trades play a greater role, more decisions now are made by business
management, often, not hampered by knowledge of what it is about. The
extreme growth in MBA education is an indication, but is philosophy of
Business Administration developping as well?
One could say that technology, the way we use the term nowadays, only
started after the combination of scientific knowledge with crafts,
workmanships experiences of artifacts starting in the 17th century and
getting accelerated by the growth of scientific knowledge in the 19th
century into a kind of explosive growth, together with science since the
second half of the twenties century as a kind of symbiosis. Most scientific
work today relays on technological artifacts.
There is a gray area between pure science, without any perspective of any
usage in applications such as astronomy and particle physics (below a level
of application) and technology usualy indicated as applied sciences.
Generally speaking applied sciences include the activities to acquire
knowledge with the intention to potentially apply this knowledge in future.
A good example of an applied science is the research and design of materials.
In a short note Thomas S. Kuhn states that:
[a]n analysis of the development of scientific knowledge must take account of
the way science has actually been practiced.[Kuhn1970: 11]
He criticizes Popper with the observation that in science rejection of theories
is an exception, only applicable to occasional revolutionary parts, Most
scientific development constitutes small steps forward. Kuhn observes an other
anomaly in the assumed rational process of verification by testing. The
acceptance of Copernicus' model as a replacement of the Ptolemaic approach, by
astronomers at the time, was not based on a better fit with test results, it was
related to the approach itself. Kuhn concludes then that:
[t]o rely on such testing as the mark of a science is to miss what scientists
mostly do and, with it, the most characteristic feature of their
enterprise....(Kuhn's original paper ends with these 4 dots!) [Kuhn 1970:
17]
Kuhn's observation that what scientists usualy do, is not testing theories on the
possibility to reject them, is correct. However, that is not what Popper
proposed. Poppers falcification theorem is one of the elements to be used as
demarcation and selection determinants between theories.\fn{For a summary of
Popper's position see attachment 1}
Kuhn is right with his remark that the most characteristic feature of science as
an enterprice should be based on what scientist mostly do, although some other
characteristics might be applicable as well. His appeal to look for the actual
activities is most applicable in the area of technology as well. This aspect
will be worked out in section 3.2.
Also, his mark on anomalies will prove to be applicable in technological
development as will come up in 3.5.
Verification and falsification
Although certainly not intended by Popper, his criteria show an
interesting similarity with methodologies in the area of technology. Artifacts
for daily use are subject to tests not only to verify what they should do, but
also to tests outside their functional specifications.
Any intermediate state, but certainly the expected final state of a theory and
of a product design should be not only verified against the starting
requirements, but also subjected to a falsification process. During the design
process it is the task of the designer to consider falsification scenarios and
apply tests. At the end of various stages of the formal development process, the
artifact will be subjected to a formalized verification/falsification process,
including stress tests and failure analysis at which the severity depends on the
application environment. (for a few more details see endnote 2)
The final 'verification' both in science and technology is the survival in time.
Theories prove to be 'true' by their success of explaining observational facts
or by being integrated into more generalized theories. Designed artifacts and
design concepts in the end are verified by their success in surviving or getting
integrated in new artifacts.
Differences
Although science and technology have a good amount of aspects in common, this is
not reflected in their related philosophies. In philosophy of science one can
observe typical controversies.(id.: 13)
1. There is the demarcation issue between science and pseudo-science. There
might be some discussion in philosophy of technology on the demarcation between
craftmanship and technology. But this is not a real issue of debate, one could
use as definition that technology assumes progress wereas craftmanship applies
available technology.
2. Then there is the so called realism-debate in the philosophy of science.
There is no such debate in the philosophy of technology. Every thing seems real
when realizable, even in the domain were most science philosophers question the
reality of quantum mechanical theories, engineers start to design and realize
quantum-devices. This position is articulated by Ian Hacking in his well known
defense of his
entity realism position, as he argues about electrons
when you can spray them they are real. [Hacking 1982] Although this
statement might not be really convincing in the realism debate, it is very
applicable in the domain of technology. However to state that engineers are
realists, in the sense as meant in the realism-debate, would not be fully
correct. A good example is the way optics are handled. In the design of optical
artifacts in general geometrical design is used, whereas all designers know
about the wave character of light. Instead of calling them realists. one would
better speak of pragmatists.\fn{Now the word pragmatist is used here in the
sense of the daily meaning}
3. Related to the realism debate is the philosophical question whether there is
progress in the sequence of scientific theories / whether progress can be
proved. In science this position was first articulated by Larry
Laudan.[Laudan1981}) Although in philosophy of technology critical ethical and
aesthetical questions can be raised, in general progress can be measured in
terms of increased functionality, efficiency and cost reduction.\fn{the
interreation with ethical and aestetical issues will be worked out in section
3.4.3.}
In philosophy of technology one can observe a wide range of views but not (yet
?) similar basic controversies as the one just mentioned in the philosophy of
science.