- Natural science knowledge: knowledge about the world gained from the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, botany, zoology, etc.
- Social and behavioral science knowledge: knowledge gained from the social and behavioral sciences about man and society, from sciences such as sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.
- Technological knowledge: knowledge about the man built world, especially knowledge of technological systems and how they work. That would include knowledge of constructed infrastructure (energy, transportation, communications, etc) as well as of machines and factories. It would also include knowledge of the agricultural technologies, biomedical technologies, etc. In short, knowledge of how to do things and how man-made things work.
Harold Foecke, the distinguished former head of science and technology education for UNESCO, sent me some papers that he wrote on the topic some years ago, for which I thank him. I think we define some key terms differently, but I think we agree in principle. (I suspect that I am in his debt, in that his early thinking probably influenced mine in the past in ways I don't fully recall.)
In any case, this posting on the meaning of words in our field was stimulated by his papers.
Words carry a baggage of historical evolution, and don't always hold the connotations we wish them to hold. "Technician" holds a meaning of a subordinate or assistant to an engineer, at least in the field of electronics where I once worked. Surgeons in England insist on being called Mr. That is a hangover from the time when physicians were gentlemen, and barber-surgeons were commoners. Indeed, the difference between university educated scientists, gentlemen who did not stoop to manual labor, and engineers, who worked with engines in the mine or factory, is similar. I am an American, and I just don't like those distinctions. I think no one is too good to work with his/her hands, and that engineering is as learned a profession as science. So I am going to ignore that distinction.
Foecke makes a great point that there is a difference between those who seek knowledge for knowledge's sake and those who seek knowledge to solve problems -- not intellectual problems, but real life problems. For the latter group, knowledge is judged as to whether or not it "is good enough". Einstein surpassed Newton in pure science by developing a theory that was so little different in practice that it took decades for tests to determine which was right. On the other hand, asperin works, and was used successfully for many decades before medical science had a clear idea of why it worked.
But how good does knowledge have to be to be good enough? As medical science develops further and further, we discover that more complete and more precise knowledge allows more precise, safer and efficacious therapy. Those developing new medical techniques have very high standards for the quality of relevant knowledge. That in part is why is takes more than a billion dollars to develop a new drug and to test it sufficiently to pass the licensing boards.
Dr. Foecke focuses on the engineer as the prototype of the professional who seeks and uses knowledge for practical ends. Not a bad prototype, but as I have suggested in this blog in the past there are lots of professionals in agriculture, medicine and public health, economics and finance, and other fields who share the key characteristics -- professionals thoroughly grounded in science who apply their knowledge to solve real problems.
Development experience has suggested, however, that institutions can be constructed in such a way that people with less formal education than engineers, doctors, public health physicians, agronomists, or economists can apply scientifically sound knowledge to practical purposes. For developing nations facing real problems now, including a shortage of scientifically and technologically trained professionals, the delegation of functions to paraprofessionals is an important process. So too is assuring that the laity is appropriately scientifically and technologically literate to apply scientifically and technologically sound knowledge to solving critical problems in their own lives and lives of their children.
I guess I should point out that our modern approach to schooling is not the only way to produce good problem solvers. The medieval master builders, trained through apprenticeships and years of journeyman service, who built Gothic cathedrals or Buddhist pagodas seemed to do great work without attending institutions of higher learning. So too did the guys who built the great pyramid of Giza or the Pantheon in Rome, not to mention Leonardo and Michaelangelo and their works.
People everywhere, I think, have a problem deciding which are the most authoritative sources of information. Do you go to a family member, a neighbor, a merchant, a clergyman, or a service professional for advice? It of course depends on the kind of advice you think you need. A farmer with a sick crop has a very different problem than a mother with a sick child; the farmer and the mother are likely to go to very different folk for advice.
The problem is more acute for poor people in poor countries. On the one hand, modern science based knowledge systems are inaccessible (and sometimes wrong). On the other hand, traditional knowledge systems are drying up (and many times wrong). One aspect of scientific and technological literacy is related to understanding when it is important to seek professional scientific and technological knowledge, and where to find it when you need it. I think that is an important aspect.
On the other hand, there is a problem in the United States that people think that science and technology is about esoteric things. The term "rocket science" comes to mind, as in "its not rocket science". Science education in schools in the United States seems often to be oriented to conveying scientific knowledge that the students will not be able to use, bypassing scientific knowledge that could be important in their daily lives. (Not to mention that rocketry is technology, not science. The Bush administration's efforts to send a man to mars by rocketry in the name of science, while neglecting the mission to earth is perhaps the extreme example of mistaking technology development for science.) While many Americans still go to traditional practitioners, still use "old wives treatments", still use herbal remedies, we have a medical system that is capable of providing science-based medical information to practically everyone who needs it. Of course, we afford that by devoting a large portion of our very high per capita GDP to health care.
Some other terms:
- Systematic science versus experimental science. A lot of scientists seem to think that if an effort does not involved hypothesis testing it is not science. I think the people who are trying to enumerate the species of the biosphere and describe them are not only real scientists, but are scientists doing some of the hardest, most important work in science. Without taxonomy there is no science. We not only have to be able to name things, but to determine which things are alike and which are different if we are to have acceptable and useful knowledge.
- Analysis versus synthesis: I think analysis it the fundamental tool of science; scientists are trying to figure out how things work. Engineers and applied scientists, as problem solvers, do analysis but they also must do synthesis. They must synthesize a solution to the problem that they approach.
- Invention versus innovation: People too often mix up the concepts. An invention is something new to man, and innovation is something new where it is applied. An invention, if it is put into practice, is an innovation; few innovations are inventions. Indeed, most innovations everywhere must be transfers from elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment