Is it just me, or are there others out there finding this redefinition of the world disquieting?
DEF: 1. a field of knowledge concerned with the use of industrial arts and applied science to achieve practical objectives. DEF: 2. all of the means available for dealing with practical problems in the material world.
DER: technologist, n.
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technE
art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology> 2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage> 3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>
I don't see how anyone in this thread can begin to justify their abuse of "technology" to describe that which is not "understood" (implies at least self and awareness and reasoning and reality) and "applied" (which implies intent and motive and capability). Non of these things are implied by evolution or any other natural process. I would even hesitate to describe some of the antics of tool-using-animals as technology as the behavior seems to be "instinctive" and "learnt" rather than reasoned.
While pretending that a "technology" is nothing more than a selective chance based outcome might make some liberal arts student feel good (sorry, irresistable dig), it doesn't change the reality that the word as defined is talking about something different. An "art", as used here, is the application of an understanding, or ability to apply an idea. For example "...as could easily be applied by one skilled in the art of writing such programs."
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
So science is the state of having knowledge. Not having data. Nor having the attribute of data. Technology is the application of scientific knowledge, in other words, using knowledge acquired through the scientific method, to solve a practical problem. The definitions seem clear, and while there may be a certain picturesque aspect to this mad-hatterish discussion; tossing generally accepted and understood definitions to one side is akin to the Brettster's tendency to wander away leaving reality somewhere behind him. Not sensible unless one can point to a superior alternative. Something that all of our postmodernists and nutters have omitted to do.
DasHermit < Thinking, that if this thread were reality, that it would be best argument for euthanasia that I would have seen; the Brettster still needs lessons in when and how to capitalize words; the Brettster still cannot write a coherent sentence. >
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of Brett Robertson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 9:43 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
> "Technology" (including the evolutionary process which manifests as
> biological "tools" such as eyes)... *technology* which has developed
> past a certain point (the point at which it becomes HUMANLY aware of
> itself as such-- and such that it might refer only to the non-human
> implements of a society) might be called, uh, SCIENCE?
> Note: The problem... "science" (so called) is now the LIMITED
> perspective whose foundation precedes it and whose limits necessitate
> that-- though it might claim to be the whole of technology (and
> evolution)-- to do so is to do so at the ultimate cost of those
> biological systems which produce it.
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> 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!: