- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
- Sequencing the dead to save the living: Reviving ancient genomes of long-extinct creatures offers a window into past extinctions—and may help prevent future die outs
- No gene is an island: Even as biologists catalog the discrete parts of life forms, an emerging picture reveals that life’s functions arise from interconnectedness
- The decider: Informing the debate over the reality of ‘free will’ requires learning something about the lateral habenula
- This week's table of contents
Text Size
As a child, Seymour Papert fell in love with gears. Papert, now considered a pioneer in artificial intelligence, describes this love in very grown-up, scientific terms: “I remember quite vividly my excitement at discovering that a system could be lawful and completely comprehensible without being rigidly deterministic.”
So Papert and other scientists recount in this collection of essays that, in their personal approach, provide an innovative way to talk about science.
A sociologist and psychologist by training, Turkle is a scholar in MIT’s Program in Science, Technology and Society. For this book, she asked scientists at various career stages to share memories of early curiosity by describing a favorite childhood object and how it shaped their thinking. The result is an eclectic collection of intimate essays that share one commonality: As the adult with accumulated knowledge looks back on such objects, the telling evolves into a way of describing scientific ideas with truly childlike wonder.
Each of the 59 essays is a gem, such as the one that includes this description from computer scientist Christine Alvarado: “I developed a system for braiding the tail of My Little Pony that taught me about mathematical concepts — from division to recursion.… Soon I was up to starting with 27 pieces … and then on to 81.”
The essays are well-written, and the details about the objects — their colors, textures, sounds — give abstract concepts an exciting tangibility.
MIT Press, 2008, 318 p., $24.95
Science And Technology Evolution Since The 1920s
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=419
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, non-applied, science has been progressing - in my opinion - at ever decreasing rate?
C.
And what have been and what are the societal-social implications of the format 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.
======================
PS1: (response to a comment1)
- 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 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 individual and societal-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 pushed off 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", to analyse and assess the societal-social implication of the bare survival of basic research, of further comprehending our place in the universe.
==============================
PS2: (response to comment2)
"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.
===========================
PS3: (response to comment3)
Pre 1920s science "was sufficiently far ahead..."
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...
===================================
PS4 (response to comment4)
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
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
Please login or register to participate.