Something to ponder?

MidnightMuse said:

I quote: "Real science is Discovery, not Invention."

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. Unfortunately I am having difficulty expressing just how it makes perfect sense to me. Discover what is all ready here, instead of trying to invent something new.

To take it a step further, I'll say "Real science fiction is Discovery, not Invention," and see what others say about that....


Edited to say: If the above makes absolutely no sense to anyone but myself, blame the cold medicine.

Real science is discovery, not invention.

Science:sci·ence P Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

Click to expand...

Not once does this mention invention. See, invention is all about creating things, for the better of the worse. However, invention could not exist without science, yet science can exist perfectly well without invention.

How? Science is the quest for knowledge through experimentation. When such knowledge is applied to existing situations, you usually get an invention. If you don't apply the knowledge, it is still science, yet you have no invention.

Er... am I making sense or is being up at 2 am getting to me?

My dictionary defines science as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena." It goes on to qualify: "Such activity restricted to a class of natural phenomena." or "Such activity applied to any class of phenomena or any methodological activity, discipline, or study."

The same dictionary defines science fiction as: "Ficton in which scientific discoveries and developments form an element of plot or background; especially, a work of fiction based on prediction of future scientific possibilities."

Science isn't discovery so much as discoveries are the result of science--or more precise, are the result of the application of the scientific method to a problem. Archimedes made discoveries in mechanics and hydrolics, Newton discovered calculus (among other things, and it can be argued that he invented calculus and that other mathematicians discovered how useful it is in solving scientific problems--but that's another story), Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding...and all of those discoveries were arrived at by application of some scientific method.

Columbus discovered North America (but it wasn't called that, then), Cook and Grey did not discover the northwest passage but it wasn't for lack of trying, Roald Amundsen discovered the south pole, and I discovered I'm out of beer. But none of those discoveries were achieved by the direct application of the scientific method--they were made by the application of stubbornness, by dumb luck or in the case of my beer, forgetfulness.

Morse invented his code (he had to do something with the telegraph he invented previously), Edison invented lots of things (light bulbs and telephones come to mind), and the Wright brothers invented a functional powered airplane. Behind those inventions was a lot of science. But we tend to use the term 'technology' in describing the results of such efforts, and sometimes, that's too bad. Because it is often the case that technology gets the gold star while science is pushed back behind the curtain and looked at with suspicion.
________________________________________
ETA: Dama must own the same dictionary I do. lol

Good answers all the way around here...

MidnightMuse said:

I heard something interesting the other day - admittedly it was on a program I was watching - but it made me say "hmmm".

I quote: "Real science is Discovery, not Invention."

At first I thought, Okay, sure. Then I thought, Wait a sec. Then I just wondered what other people might think.

Click to expand...

Personally, it sounds like bumper sticker profundity (and was likely coined by a scientist who had his lunch money stolen by engineers). That doesn't make it untrue, but it does oversimplify it.

Figure that the statement is basically correct: science, at it's most fundamental level, is about discovering the behavior of the universe at various levels. OTOH, where would science be without invention? Frankly, it would still be back at the levels of ancient Greece.

By the same token, science doesn't create inventions. Invention, and technology in general, is the realm of engineering – Science is to discovery what Engineering is to invention/technology.

It also seems the quote glosses over a certain amount of overlap of science and engineering, especially when new scientific principles arise as a result of discoveries made due to "invention." Take CMOS chip creation, for instance. How much of the science of quantum physics has been refined by studying the effects of electrons in circuits smaller than 15nm? Heck, where would astronomy be today without the invention of telescopes? One hand really washes the other here.

On it's surface, it's true. Can't argue that.
OTOH, it oversimplifies so bad that it borders on being profoundly wrong.

Just my ¢2.