Shared publicly  - 
442
235
Donald Ingram's profile photoKarl Smithe's profile photoKenneth Smith's profile photoZack Young's profile photo
96 comments
 
Do you mind if I send this to everyone I know?
 
Too many people in this world need to read this message...
 
Science requires a lot of imagination because reality is much much stranger than fiction.

However, science allows as to mitigate our handicap of flawed perceptions and biases and helps us to identify fact from fiction.
 
Technology is a noun. Science is a verb. We do science to get technology.
 
Science is a WAY to knowledge. It's a process. The bible is a way to knowledge. Not a good way, it turns out.
 
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge").
 
Relative beliefs and truth in the reality ...subjectives and objectives.
Literally speaking +Lee Reed , but yes it is defined as a process.
 
Technology: The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes
 
+Jennifer Isaacs, my latin ass stands corrected. And +Lee Reed, I completely agree with you. I don't like to look at "science" as the body of knowledge, rather it's the process of how we arrived at that knowledge. I feel that it's a more demonstrably proven way of getting knowledge than we've had in the past, but it's still a WAY.
 
Coffee: The delivery mechanism for caffeine to help me stay awake at work.

Sorry. Just had to add that in there. :p
 
Doesn't mean it stays limited. We just need to keep finding better tools to explore with I do believe. :)
 
Science has it's limitations but it is pretty much the only way to knowledge.
 
We need better explanations for the science that has already been figured out. Ever met a computer science major who can't explain electricity? And they aren't even uncommon. We are too compartmentalized.
 
The problem with explanations is they can be distorted any ways.
 
The divide between science and religion is a false dichotomy. I know several people who are religious as well as professors in areas such as bio and physics who roll their eyes at ignorance like this. People can say that they believe in god and things like evolution and the big bang all in the same breath.
 
Mathematical deduction is also a path to knowledge.
 
+Jennifer Isaacs Yeah, they are so distorted so often I can't believe that a lot of it is not deliberate.
 
Holey texts (pick your favorite), statistics, people, torcher then enough and they will tell you any thing.
 
This is great, thanks for sharing! Also, funny that Google put you under the "Hot on Google+" thread because I had astronomy 101 with you, and I loved it. Thanks again Mr. Snowder for an amazing class.
 
I don't think it is a false dichotomy. It's just that our brains are very good and handling contradictions.
 
foolish is the man who said those words ("Science is all a bunch.."). seriously.
 
The contradictions can be endless when people get greedy for the power of control over it all. Some times it isn't about the learning and knowing but about the winning. Not cool with that kind of burn of such Charlie Sheen WINNING'.
 
oh wow... you actually played the Charlie Sheen card.

Okay you win. :p
 
Science shouldn't be about who wins but the knowledge itself to what is truth in the universe. Question every thing is just to fun for me. I could care less if it is wrong but it sure feels right when I learn something. :D
bish s
+
1
2
1
 
I've learned to keep myself away from discussions like these... Love the OP, though! :)
 
you need to uunderstand the differences between tech. and sci.
 
yeah.. and then we want to complain because it takes to long for a page to load. HAHAHA!
 
I did a white paper in 1999 while at Intel. I was trying to suggest that there is a law much like Moore's law, named after Gordon Moore, about Integration. At the time we were on 500 Nm process technology, it suggested that a law of integration would say that as complex electronic systems advance they will become more complex and vanish from our sight. Soon they will be out of our sight completely, the only proof of the system's existence will be the user interface, most of the time that will be a touch screen. That was in 1999 and we are now looking at 32Nm process technology with trig gate transistor technology that will allow, at last, a 3 year lead for Intel if they play it right. The user interface will still be the display but touch will begin to fade soon as gesture recognition and the camera as an input device plays a more serious role. OLED will push LED which requires back lighting or a diffuser technology, OLED will be thin, flexible, and lend itself to roll to roll processing with back side contacts and chip tacking and mounting right on the display interposer, bye bye circuit board for most systems.
 
burn my yes out reading that. a space or to would be cool
 
Uh, no. We've made a bunch of hogwash out of science. The more we learn. The less we know.
 
ah but you forget, there's also ten thousand advertisements that stick to your data like mosquitos to a hippo in heat in order to not only frustrate you, but also to fill your computer with viruses and the like...people have found ways to confound the feats of geniuses with sheer stupidity.
 
I got a serious after image from reading this
 
Well said. Hogwash indeed. Sure looks like a total farce on my end too.
 
Engineers built all the technology to make this comment happen. Not scientists.
 
+Lee Reed : I would assert that most technology requires quite a lot of science. There are literally thousands of hypothesis tests imbedded in the technology of a single aircraft. There are thousands more that were required for the first satellites. Nearly every complex tool we use has a history of millions of testable ideas behind it.
 
+David Lazarus : That science has made us aware, at any level, of the scale of our ignorance is a testament to its utility in and of itself. The more we learn, the more questions remain. That is perhaps the best indication that science is not hogwash.
 
I'm going to use that technology to tell everyone. White on black with jpeg artifacts just killed my eyes.
 
Does anyone else's eyes hurt after reading this?
 
But it's the physicists who understand how it works :P
 
It doesn't need to be a false dichotomy. Keep your god. Just love the natural world too. Look around you, and love the amazing things you see. Don't even worry about that "science" word, just look the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photos. They will rock your world. Give a god the credit for them, I don't care, but LOOK at them. They are breath-taking. That natural world is so beautiful and amazing and perplexing, and wonderful, just look at that. Give god that credit, I don't care. But LOOK.
 
+Michael Habib -- Exactly. To use your "aircraft" example. The technology doesn't mean shit if it's not for the science of Drag/Thrust/Lift and the aerodynamics that define and control those aspects of flight.
As for those who are complaining about technology being separate from science... really? really? I would have to say that those who are saying they are two different things most likely didn't pass high school physics.
So the way electricity works and the conductive properties of various elements are completely separate from science?
Also remember... fire was once considered a "technology". Now it's just a 'scientific state.' Hitting a nail with a hammer is technology, but now we know it as "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Stop trying to start fires where you know you're only committing arson and nothing more.
 
And just wonder where you'd be right now, w/out science solving a lot of the riddles of life and our world. I'll tell you where you'd be; IN A LAND OF SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND STRONGEST, FIGHTING FOR YOUR LIFE EVERY SINGLE DAY. I GUESS YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE FUN. YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID>>>BE VERY AFRAID.>>>THE SOLAR CYCLE THAT IS COMING THIS YEAR WHICH WILL PROBABLY WIPE OUT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE POWER GRID LIKE IN THE 1800's WILL TAKE OUT ALL ELECTRICAL ACTIVITIES WE ENJOY. THEN WHAT? i just wonder, hmmmm. I AM READY. ARE Y'ALL?
 
gee.....i never really thought of it that way.......
 
So... did an Asian nerd write this?
 
+Jason Watts So you truly believe that there is no Science in the engineering used to make this stuff. Surely your comment is in pure sarcasm as was mine. I can only hope.
Do you honestly think that a bunch of assemblers just happened to get together and randomly created everything we use? Do you have any idea whatsoever the years of scientific research that have gone into the technology you take for granted? Being an electrical engineer, I have an idea, and added up one hour at a time we have at least several thousand years of scientific research, theory, and fact.
 
And as we type, the US Congress continues to underfund and devalue EDUCATION!
 
but christians gave us coats for our puppies and kitties :P
 
Who uses miles in a post about science? Discredits the whole thing.
 
+Kevin Galipeau I Google it and the first result is Wikipedia article "list of unusual units of measurement".
 
I don't understand why this d discussion is still going on after Charlie sheen has been invoked
 
mmm. that was not the best way to phrase the point.
 
+Lee Reed I think your confusing science with the scientific method. Science is a noun. The scientific method is the path to discerning science or "knowledge".
 
I'm also glad to see WWU folks showing up on Google+ under "What's Hot". Most excellent and keep up the good work.
 
2000 B.C somewhere in Egypt, was it Science or Technology?or I we just on a tip of an Ice-bag with 4D's and who the hack cruising on a four story- two blocks apartment building in my hood?..I nearly forgot am just a by-product of Bantu Education and I love my job as a Shepard, can't wait for Android App!per KISS APPROACH "Science is to the mouth, Technology is to the rear end".
 
every thing at Egypt at this time is still mistry ,
 
with good imagination we can understand alot of difficult things around us
 
+Bill Keller I think you're referring to the scientific method. It's the method we use to get to the science or "knowledge". And, yes, it's the most reliable method we have for discerning the truth.
 
+Boris Larson Indeed capitalism is a crank for which new technology is driven. But what we lack is a strong system for keeping this crank from spinning wild and bleeding the system dry, if that happens the engine stalls. Such as we are seeing now. A customer also reminds me that colleges are a major source of innovation. He is also very correct as a university can crank out an alarming number of unique patents an ideas, however, this does not always have as profound an impact as we might like, because often those patents are sealed away by the university, purchased by major corporations, only to be burned so that no one could ever acquire the technology. Both actions should be regarded as criminal. Certainly a slap in the face to Scientists, Inventors, and Engineers... Such is the double edge of capitalism without the needed restraints.
 
I'd love to share this, the sentiment is great; but the "science" makes me wince. The maximum circumference of the Earth is ~24901 miles, so no two points are 15,000 miles away from each other (when measuring the minimum distance, which is the only reasonable interpretation); "processed by a super computer on a mass server" is nonsensical; a couple of other points are eyebrow-raising.
 
+Phil Pennock I took the 15000 miles away as hyperbole, but it would be reasonable to measure distance in terms of distance traveled (which is how most people measure commute distance, for instance... technically it's "route length", not "distance"), in which case it's certainly plausible that a particular computer-to-computer communication has traveled that far.
 
I think part of this discussion is due to the modern habit of conflating "technology" with all this cool computer stuff. The wheel is technology; a pencil is technology; a blade of grass used by a chimpanzee to get ants out of a hill is technology. And yes, the iPad is some pretty kick-ass technology.

Then there's "science". Are we limiting that solely to the results of a rigorous scientific method, or are we including anything that resembles that, i.e., trial-and-error? If the latter, the wheel and just about any other piece of technology would presumably qualify.

That said, it's pretty hard to imagine a real world implementation of any tech-related idea that didn't persist due to some sort of experimentation. Perhaps the original implementation was lacking in the hypothesis portion. The development of the wheel, for instance, could have gone a few ways: Someone notices that things that are sort of round roll, and so kept using those things (a Darwinian approach: survival of the fittest knowledge); someone notices that round logs roll better than squarer ones and then tries a bunch of differently shaped objects until settling on round ones without really noticing the characteristic of "circularity" (trial-and-error); someone notices that things of a certain shape seem to roll better, creates a hypothesis about circularity, and then selects groups of "round" and "not round" objects to test that hypothesis. Which of these techniques qualify as "science"?
 
+Lee Reed If engineers never changed based on new information, we'd still be driving Model Ts.
 
There is the knowledge it's self of the truth that we keep searching for, and the truth that never changes.
 
+Lee Reed All is fine, you keep worshiping an absentee GOD, while we keep using Scientific methods which are repeatable facts. The idea that since something may be revised tomorrow, even though it has been verified today, therefor it must be not be a fact, is a fallacy. One that is created with the sole purpose of attempting to demoralize and undermine the scientific effort. Unfortunately, it really only serves to demonstrate how desperate the holy masses are to shut up the scientific community.

Whats funny, Mr. Reed, is that I would have supported your first statement. But the most recent? No. Only because it is what it is. A fact is a fact, until it is proven otherwise. Facts are repeatable, anything less, is just a theory, or a prayer. Facts are real things that do not require faith, and every one of us without question, may observe.

I'm sorry I find the argument that a fact is not a fact because of what tomorrow may bring, very much unacceptable. This is entirely upon the credibility of those doing the scientific work to verify their results and then have them confirmed by peers.
 
The problem here, is the misconception you have of those who are religious. You believe that believing in God and believing in science are mutually exclusive. Lets not be so ignorant to believe that just because someone believes in a higher power, that they don't believe in science and technology.
 
and then all that has to happen and we are so inpatient and say it wont load fast enough!
 
Umm... who is saying this, exactly?
 
+Lee Reed So what do you add to science to definitively know something? Know something like you can never prove something with science for example.
 
This sounds like that foreign language...JIBBERISH,,,
Add a comment...