--WebTV-Mail-1974298885-6501 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
How do you make a distinction between the "products" of technology and the driving force which creates the products?
Isn't freedom a technology (for example)? What products does it create and how are these products "of a different sort"?
I could also ask: "Isn't medicine a technology?". Though, by the first example, I would like to make the point that while the technology of medicine MAY be defined by the products, the example which freedom suggests may illustrate that a technology doesn't even HAVE to be product oriented (and from there we might further distinguish the product from the technology-- as in the medicine example [or the science example]... assuming that this distinction is meaningful at all).
Brett Lane Robertson
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
--WebTV-Mail-1974298885-6501 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (18.104.22.168) by postoffice-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id QAA15626; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA32716 for virus-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:14:23 -0600X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:13:27 -0700
At 05:30 PM 26/05/99 -0500, Brett wrote:
>Technology creates science... not the other way around.
I think you may be misinterpreting a causal chain (with the attendant "chicken-and-egg" problem) with a "static" relationship, as well as mislabeling "technology". Science, as a knowledge base and prescriptive regimen akin to base pairs and transcription factors, does indeed "cause" technology (using the same analytical perspective as gene expression). After all, the strict definition of technology is "applied science", but you could just as well say "expressed science". If you were to replace "technology" with "empirical knowledge", I might agree with you. Understanding can't appear before the knowledge base, and applying what is understood can't appear before acquiring understanding. There may _appear_ to be feedback from technology to science, but it is actually a flow from the _products_ of technology (i.e. more and better empirically-derived knowledge), creating, if anything, a circular relationship.
>cannot be used to discover the limits of science (and so suggests a
>metaphysic which is outside the bounds of the scientific); technology,
>on the other hand, CAN establish the standards and controls (the
>"reality") according to which what is scientific can be discerned from
>"science fiction". THIS is where the philosophical sciences come in...
>philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics, religion, and metaphysics.
>Thus, the "ethics" of science are the general applications of the
>specific technology (the "moral" of science).