Filed under: Academia, Epistemology, Neuroscience, Philosophy | Tags: science-technology fallacy
On the comp-neuro mailing list, James Schwaber writes about the science-technology fallacy:
A lot of the discussion about the ‘right way to model’ or what to model may be a version of what my friend Mike Gruber has termed a version of the science-technology fallacy, the idea that you have to understand a process analytically before you can use it, and he always quotes Carnot here–thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than ever the steam engine owes to thermodynamics. Obviously, humans used and controlled fire for 100,000 years before Lavoisier explained what fire was, and planes flew for decades before there was a theory to explain how they did it. In fact theory ‘demonstrated’ that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.
This is an interesting point. Is it true? If so, what is the point of science?
I have some ideas, but I’d like to see what others have to say.