Science and technology differ in their ultimate goal PDF

Preview

Summary

ESTA descripcion es para avisarte de manera sutil que me estoy estoy inventando esto....

Description

Science and technology differ in their ultimate goal, which is clearly and forcefully different. The sciences seek to understand the universe and its functioning; to elucidate the rules, procedures and systems that make the cosmos exist as it is. They are descriptive in the sense that they contemplate existing phenomena and try to explain their mechanisms; all their interventions (experiments) are intended to aid understanding, and therefore under ideal conditions the modifications introduced in the natural functioning are regulated and minimal. The end result of the sciences are theories that explain what is out there and how it works.

Technologies, however, do not describe the world, but modify it to suit human needs. Their goal is not to understand the universe, but to shape it to make it better for us; the knowledge they seek and employ is intended for application in this endeavor, not knowledge itself. Technologies are always 'for' something: to create roads or other public works, to cure diseases, to extract minerals, to manufacture objects. The purpose is utilitarian, and the reason for their existence is ultimately to improve the existence of mankind.

The relationship between the two fields is intimate, twisted and sometimes misunderstood; the extension of concepts such as 'applied science' only complicates it further. Technologies use the knowledge of the universe generated by the sciences to improve their techniques, while science needs to draw on the most advanced technology (and sometimes push it beyond its limits) in order to carry out its experiments. Sometimes scientific research in a particular direction or in a specific field is directed and encouraged to help solve a technological issue, as is the case with cell biology and the cure for cancer. At other times new technologies suddenly emerge from relatively hidden or even unexpected scientific breakthroughs, as has just happened with genetic engineering and the CRISPR-Cas system. When we talk about 'applied science', we mix concepts and design activities that are halfway between the two shores.

But these are different endeavors with different objectives, and mixing them conceptually has consequences that can be serious. Because if technology, by definition, includes economics and therefore politics, this is not the case in science. An engineer's joke says that to the question 'Can this be done?' the answer is always: 'It depends on the budget', because in any technological field the key to decision making is profitability and access to resources. On many occasions, discussions on technology issues do not analyze the possibility of doing something, but whether the chosen solution is the most convenient, economical, interesting, profitable: it is not discussed whether it is possible or not, but the convenience of doing it. It is not a decision about facts, but about policy, and that is how it should be....