Science or invention, which has contributed most to human comfort?

[wolram]

Science or invention, which has contributed most to human comfort?

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Well, since one can be thought of as the bastard child of the other it's kind of hard to separate them in this sort of question. Where does one start and the other begin?

 

[Moridin]

Is there a difference?

 

[Donski]

Science itself doesn't contribute to human comfort, it's the inventors application of science that does. Without science at even the most primitive level, there would be no inventions. As science gets more complex, so do the inventions.

Well, since one can be thought of as the bastard child of the other it's kind of hard to separate them in this sort of question. Where does one start and the other begin?

I agree, invention is the bastard child of science.
But as far as bastard children go, it's my favorite child.

 

[mgb_phys]

As an experimental physicist I always thought that science was a by-product of new inventions

 

[Danger]

Kind of a weird scenario, the way that I see things.
No invention can work unless the science behind it is sound, but the inventor doesn't have to be aware of that science.
In that light, I would vote for invention. Things like fire and the wheel predated any formalization of science.

 

[wolram]

Kind of a weird scenario, the way that I see things.
No invention can work unless the science behind it is sound, but the inventor doesn't have to be aware of that science.
In that light, I would vote for invention. Things like fire and the wheel predated any formalization of science.

Very well put Danger, there may be a wealth of science behind an invention, but the inventor is not aware of it, for instance was the steam engine invented with the use of science or was it a progression of improvements by inventors?

 

[Donski]

Science as defined by Webster's Dictionary

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 <cooking is both a science and an art>

Whether an inventor wants to admit it or not, even chipping out the first wheel required "the state of knowing" how to do that. Simply testing to see that a round object will roll fulfills "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". Therefore knowing that round objects can roll and chipping out a wheel is "a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws".

This means that by definition, science was required to invent the wheel.
Simply because it's not formalized science doesn't negate the fact that it is still science.
So in my opinion: There can be no inventions without science, only discoveries.
Although, science has played a major roll in discoveries too.

 

[neutrino]

Um...isn't this thread going off-track, or has it been decided that inventions have contributed the most to human comfort(whatever that may mean)?

 

[wolram]

Is this guy knowingly using science?

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/crow/

 

[Donski]

Is this guy knowingly using science?

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/crow/

At the most primitive level defined by Webster, I hate to say it but the answer would be yes. And then some people have also defined an abacus as a primitive computer. I realize how these things might hurt your ego, just like a professional wrestler watching Animal Planet and hearing them call a monarch butterfly an athlete. The problem is in the definition of what is science.

It is said that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it then it doesn't make a sound. I disagree with that and say that sound and sound waves are one in the same, so since it produces sound waves then it does make a sound. Noise on the other hand is personal opinion, so I say it doesn't make a noise. My problem is in the definition of what is sound.

Now I've learned to live with what I disagree with, the established definition of sound is not my choice. I also feel insulted to think they define science as simply "the state of knowing". Now if you want to use your own definition of science then that's up to you, I have to again restrain my ego and accept the established definition.

Um...isn't this thread going off-track, or has it been decided that inventions have contributed the most to human comfort(whatever that may mean)?

All I am saying is that you can't have one without the other.
I'm standing on what I said the first time.

Science itself doesn't contribute to human comfort, it's the inventors application of science that does. Without science at even the most primitive level, there would be no inventions.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Insert Escher Icon Here

Mathematics is the servant of physics (and the other hard sciences), which is the servant of engineering, whose purpose is technological innovation, which benefits civilization, whose purpose is--- to do mathematics!

 

[wolram]

I am amazed that a crow can use science, but it does not hurt my ego.