In a later blog I'll tackle a definition of science. But first we need to understand what science isn't. Science is NOT the same as technology. Technology is designing, making and using tools. People who do technology are engineers, designers, inventors. Technology can be as simple as using a stick as a lever to move a boulder, or as complex as designing a nuclear power plant, or a lander to explore Mars.
By contrast a scientist observes and explains the world around us. More about this in a later post.
Are chemists scientists? Not necessarily! Many chemists do technology, including me. Chemists who try to synthesize useful compounds like drugs, pigments, adhesives, and a host of other uses are technologists at heart. Chemists who analyze samples for contamination or to determine the formula of a new compound are using tools for practical purposes, so they are technologists. Chemists who devise new methods of analysis are technologists because they are inventing tools.
Note that a technologist is not the same as a technician. A technician follows an established set of rules to accomplish a task. A technologist probably established the rules.
Please don't think I am denigrating anybody's role. Scientists, technologists, and technicians all play a vital role in progress. But they play different roles.
Obviously technology and science depend heavily upon one another, and often the same person does both science and technology. Nowadays technology depends heavily on the knowledge that scientists discover. Likewise, science depends heavily on the tools that technology delivers.
I'm guessing the formulation I have outlined here would be controversial. I'm sure some people I have decided are technologists would argue that they are true scientists. I disagree, but who am I to say? Any arguments?
I think it would be wise, if needlessly abstract, to make a distinction between what a person is and what a person does. Someone can be both a scientist and a technologist in the sense that somebody can do experiments but that doesn't stop them from later inventing something.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'd add that mathematicians aren't scientists even though they aren't necessarily inventing anything and are trying to explain things. Usually they get lumped together as nerds.
Absolutley people can be both, and often are, at least in chemistry.
ReplyDeleteI'll deal with the whole "experiment" thing in a later post. I think scientists and technologists both do experiments. They are not a hallmark of science alone.
Yeah, I haven't quite figured out how mathematicians fit into my whole science/technology world view. Don't you give us the language we need to summarize and explain data?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, we are all lumped into nerddom. Some of us are so nerdy, we come out cool on the other side, like Stephen Hawking, right?
And the peanut gallery throws in...
ReplyDeleteSo if that observing and explaining the world around us is the scientist, and through the organization of the knowledge of the world around us, or organization of the world of knowledge around us, would librarians, we observe and explain the world around us, is a librarian, thus, a scientist?
Good question! I'll have to think about that one, as I consider what to put in my next post about what science is. Certainly some psychologists, economists, and even historians do science.
ReplyDeleteGreg, that may be one of the most convoluted sentences I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it technically even qualifies as a sentence. Let's look into the structure, shall we? First, we have "So if that observing and explaining...is a scientist..." It would appear that is being used as a demonstrative adjective, meaning the compound subject is the pair of gerunds "observing and explaining," and the predicate noun of this presumed clause is "the scientist," which seems to be an error in usage. I don't even know how to name this error, as I read it. It seems like a pronoun reference error, but there's no pronoun here, just nouns.
ReplyDeleteAlternately, "that" could be used as a demonstrative pronoun, making it the subject of the clause, with "observing and explaining" as participles, but "that" must then refer to a person, which seems to be non-standard usage. Furthermore, "that which observes and explains" seems a more natural construction.
ReplyDeleteContinuing, we have "and through the organization...of knowledge around us," which would appear to be an adverbial clause, modifying the previous S-LV-PN clause (itself subordinated by "So if"), but which would also appear to be missing a key component. Whether this component is logical, i.e., there is no previously established link between observation and the organization of observations in regard to membership in the class of "science," or merely grammatical, I cannot tell. I would say that connecting these clauses with "and through," was probably not a wise choice.
ReplyDeleteContinuing further, we have "would librarians, we observe and explain the world around us, is a librarian, thus, a scientist?" Since would is a verb form, librarians must be the subject of this interrogative clause. We are then met with the troubling idea that the clause "we observe...us" modifies this subject, but this cannot be the case, as there is no subordinating conjunction/pronoun here. Then we are met with the more troubling "is," which seems to open another interrogative clause, despite that our last one was never closed.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I find this an improperly constructed sentence. That is, it's not really a sentence at all.
As to the relevant topic, I would say that science U technology != human activity, so you don't really have to worry if something doesn't fit into either category.
ReplyDeleteHey, you try to write a sentence a coherent thought while being interrupted 300 times to respond to "I'm here to take my placement test." (They want to know where to take the test. And despite the fact that they are standing directly in front of a sign that tells them exactly where to go, I have to explain it to them.)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you call a PR guy who bastardizes your research report into a more interesting and understandable feature story for the masses to consume? Oh wait, I know there's a term for it. What is it? Oh ya...hack. That's it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should have to take a test on finding the right placement.
ReplyDeleteMore interesting, or less interesting?
Wow! 14 comments! and a treatise on sentence structure! Amazing
ReplyDeleteGreg, it sounds like your students are as "sign-challenged" as mine.
ReplyDelete