Science vs. Technology
There is an apparent confusion or blur between the role of a “scientist” and “technologist”. According to Andy Gibbons, this blur can lead to technologists thinking of themselves as “wannabe” scientists, a self-image that is “damaging to technological research, especially to research in instructional technology”. (Thr Practice of Instructional Technology: Science and Technology, Gibbons 2003) In his article, Gibbons makes the distinction that science “builds conceptual models… to explain observed effects,” while technology “builds different causal models… to describe how artifacts can created.” Charles Reigeluth makes this point clearer in his article “What is Instructional-Design Theory” by stating that instructional design theory (technology) is “design oriented” while science is “description oriented”.
Dr. Alan J. Friedman, Director of NY Science Hall sums up these differences in a simpler way.
Friedman expresses his concern that many futurists fail to distinguish between science and technology. He states, “Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the material world. By its very nature, science is indeed unpredictable. If we knew exactly what we were going to find, we would not bother looking for it. The understanding eventually produced by science consists of concepts, words, and equations. Science is unpredictable, but it is also slow and by itself rarely affects our material lives.”
On the other hand, Friedman says that technology “is the conscious attempt to apply our understanding about the universe to accomplish some specific, material end: to cure a disease, to build a superior weapon, to make a cleaner car, or to provide 500 channels of entertainment. Technology can undoubtedly change our lives, and sometimes rather quickly. But it is far from unpredictable. People doing technology have deliberate motives and must assemble substantial resources and convince other people to accept their technology, before that technology can actually become powerful. If we choose to accept our responsibilities as a society to investigate and review proposed technologies before we fund and adopt them, technology becomes much more predictable and controllable.”
So why is it important to make the distinction in the first place? I think Dr. Gibbons would say that the confusion inhibits both technologists and scientists from doing what they are best at. My feeling is that these aren’t necessarily two different “modes” or categories. Instead I see is as a scale. On one side is the pure scientist and on the other is the technologist. My feeling is that there is some inherent overlap between the two fields, but that as you get closer to the science side the design issues drop off and as you move close to the technology side, the descriptive characteristics drop off. My guess would be that Gibbons, while recognizing that we are all both scientists and technologists, would call for a separation of the two, encouraging the people to move out of the middle and towards the poles of the scale with the argument that the specialization of each would benefit both. So, where would I fall on this scale? I would certainly consider myself closer to the technologist side of the scale. This is due to the fact that I am more interested in finding solutions using available constructs than attempt to define or describe the constructs in the first place. In my mind that is the more practical of the two. But I recognize that to some extent technology is dependent on science.
September 20th, 2004 at 11:20 am
Great blog! I agree that much of the time technologists feel like scientist “wannabes.” I think because science has had such a long past and refinement of its principles and procedures that they can be “oversure” of themselves and somehow the rest of the world feels like their own opinions or knowledge is somehow less than that of scientists. Being married to one and working with a bunch of them, and being more of a technologist myself, I can see through the scientific methods enough to realize that they aren’t any more sure of the world than the rest of us are. Or at least they shouldn’t be. I wonder when technologists will be able to accept ourselves for who we are and not compare ourselves to other disciplines! Power to the people!
September 27th, 2004 at 11:08 am
Great thoughts . . . thanks for getting the quote from Friedman too.
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:17 pm
I think this is true. People need to know the difference between technology and science,(technologists and scientists.) They study COMPLETELY different things and people refuse to believe that and good quote, “Technologists are wanna-be scientists.” Brilliance.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Back in school, I was taught that science (formerly referred to as natural philosophy) was the pursuit of knowledge of the natural (anything not man made, not just organic) world. Technology on the other hand is simply tool making. Tool making being any man made object from an utilitarian object, like a hammer, to a frivolous toy, like an ipod. Prehistoric blacksmiths practiced technology, with little reliance on science. Its just that science has been in the ‘tool makers’ (technologist) tool box in the last few centuries, since its fruits (scientific principles) has made his (or her) job easier. Its a tool, just like a word processor is a typist’s tool, but does that make the typist a computer programmer? We know it does not, but tell that to the man on the streets.