What Is Technology?

Science and technology are constant themes in Crichton's work. In previous posts, I attempted to clarify what science is and some of the social problems that surround it. In this thread, I will attempt to clarify what technology is and some of the social and ethical problems surrounding it.

Technology is not what most people think that it is. So before attempting to define it, I want to dispel two common misconceptions regarding the nature of technology. First, many people think of technology as applied science. Science figures things out and technology applies that knowledge. This seriously misses the contributions of technology itself to those applications; and saying that technology is applied science is like saying that the culinary arts are just applied agriculture. The analogy is apt because, in both cases, necessary raw materials are produced by the former, but the later still has a lot of work to do.

Second, people often think of technology as the gadgets that populate and sometimes even define the modern world. Computers, DVD players, cell phones, the Internet, and so on are all examples of technology.

A few posts back, I stated "Science is, first and foremost, a process". While we tend to view the products of that process as science, science is the process and the products are the products. Similarly, technology is a process and we also tend to view the products of that process as technology. But, again, technology is the process and the products are the products.

So, what is technology? If we go back to the roots of the word we can get some insight into its nature. Technology comes from two ancient Greek words: techné and logos. Techné is a reliable process by which a desired result is produced. We can think of the word as meaning craft although our modern understanding of a craft is a bit less disciplined than techné. Logos is a rigorous understanding of an area of inquiry. So, biology (bios logos), for example, is a rigorous understanding of life. Technology is a rigorous understanding of how to produce desired results. Our modern word, engineering captures much of this. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of the word engineering is, perhaps, a little too disciplined for the concept of technology. Persuasive rhetoric is certain a body of knowledge about how to produce a desired result. But, few people would refer to it as persuasion engineering.

Nonetheless, technology is a body of knowledge about how to produce desired results. The focus of science is the things that make up the natural world. The focus of technology are the things that are not yet part of the natural (or social) world but could be.

Social Issues in Science

Following up on the previous posts on science, we can identify at least three major issues with respect to science that science, as an epistemology, cannot answer for us. These are questions about science that cannot be answered by science and consequently can be thought of as limitations of science.

First of all, when can we treat knowledge that was acquired through scientific inquiry as truth? There are abundant examples of scientists changing their mind about things and this is a good thing. It would be terrible if scientists stuck steadfastly to old ideas despite new evidence or new thinking. However, at what point along the discovery process do we accept scientific truth as true enough for now? When do we teach it as truth and when do we use it in making decisions?

Second, if we think a bit of knowledge is true or true enough, what does it mean and what are the implications? For example, penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic. That relationship between penicillin and microbes was discovered and validated scientifically. But what does that mean? Does it mean you can give people penicillin to cure bacterial illnesses? It would seem so. But it isn't quite that clear. Some people have allergies to penicillin. Using penicillin creates bacteria that are resistant to it. Saving lives means additional population and a greater strain on resources. What do we do about those things? Science is not quite as well equipped to give us answers there.

Third, what should we do about the knowledge we acquire scientifically. Let's say that a particular ethnic group is discovered to excel at a particular kind of work or prone to a particular kind of anti-social behavior. Should than information be used in public policy decisions? Science is prudently silent on that issue.

The problem here is that we take what science is good at - discovering reliable knowledge, over time, about the natural world - and extrapolate that to things science is not good at - implications, meaning, and possibilities.

This is a theme that Crichton returns to time and time again. We have almost a blind faith in science to answer all of our questions (beyond knowledge about the natural world) and this blind faith is seriously misplaced.

Scientists are Human

In the last post, I emphasized the fact that science is a process. Over time it produces good results, but at any given moment in time, it can be way off. Another, factor that we tend to forget is that scientists are human. While this statement is obvious, we often forget to acknowledge the implications of it.

Scientists are people just like people who are not scientists. They have hopes and aspirations; goals and objectives. They have families, social ties, and political leanings. They have beliefs and assumptions and inclinations. And sometimes these things get in the way of their science.

Just like the process of science is self correcting over time, the biases of one scientist are compensated for by opposite biases of another science. And, again over time and over a large number of people, it sorts itself out.

Consider the scientists in Jurassic Park. There is Henry Wu, a young scientist trying to make his mark in the world. There is Dr. Grant who's primary concern is funding for his digs. There is Ian Malcolm (a mathematician actually, not a scientist) who's primary concern is supporting his theory. And there is Dennis Nedry, the computer scientist, who does not feel that he gets enough respect.

Martin Hollis, in The Philosophy of Social Science offers the observation "The schoolroom image of modern science is one of unprejudiced Reason exploring an independent realm of nature." It is a 'schoolroom image' because it does not hold up in reality. And it certainly does not hold up with these characters.

This is another theme that Crichton explores repeatedly. We cannot take what 'scientists say' and accept it uncritically as though it were the unvarnished and absolute truth. It is not. Over time it does seem to get better. But at any given moment in time, what 'scientists say' is really just another data point.

Science is a Process

Science is, first and foremost, a process. It is a process for producing reliable knowledge about the natural world. Certain tenets of this process increase the likelihood of reliable knowledge. Claims must be based on evidence. Claims must be falsifiable. It must be possible for scientists to test the claims of other scientists. And so on. Over time, due to these and other tenets of the scientific method, the process of science tends to produce reliable results. However, this does not mean that what a given scientist, or group of scientists, happens to believe at a particular moment is true. There are endless examples of mistakes made along the way. Sometimes the entire community believes something that turns out not to be true. Sometimes the entire community rejects something that does turn out to be true. Sometimes the entire community just changes it mind on an issue because there is a better way to look at it. And, there is nothing wrong with this. It is the way science works. The goal is not to be right at every step along the way. The goal is to be as close as you can be every step of the way while ensuring the most reliable knowledge over time.

"Over time" is the key phrase here. And problems arise when people take something that scientists believe at a give moment in time as gospel. It is not. Over time, as the process continues, it becomes more reliable. But, sometimes it takes quite a while to achieve any degree of reliability. Imagine taking a Thanksgiving turkey out of the over when it is half cooked and serving it for dinner. Since the process of cooking is not finished, this would be a really bad idea. Similarly, taking claims from an ongoing scientific debate as gospel before they have had a sufficient opportunity to be tested and refined is also a really bad idea. And it is an idea that Crichton brings out repeatedly.

What Is Science?

One of the recurrent themes in Michael Crichton's work is our unchallenged belief in Science as a source of answers. To be fair to both Crichton and to Science, I should say that Crichton does not have a problem with Science itself as much as he has a problem with our misunderstandings and misuses of Science. So, this post will begin an attempt to explain the phenomenon of science as well as Crichton's concerns about it.

Some time around the 6th century BCE we began to look away from supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and toward natural explanations. Before this there were stories about Zeus and Apollo. After this there were questions like what are things made of, what are they, and why do they behave the way they do. People who asked these questions were called "natural philosophers" because their focus was the natural world. Contrast this, for example, with "moral philosophers" whose focus was on how people should behave. Note also, that questions of how people should behave is completely out of scope for natural philosophers.

Natural philosophy toddled on for over two millenia before it got two important boosts. Francis Bacon wrote The New Organon which updated the methods of Aristotle, and Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Bacon's method added a new level of rigor to natural philosophy and Newton showed how powerful it was for gathering knowledge.

Over time natural philosophers began to focus less on the larger ideas (how the heavens works) and more on the smaller ideas (what are the different kinds of rocks and plants). The word "scientist" was not actually used until the mid 19th century to distinguish between those people who contemplated the large ideas (natural philosophers) and those who focused on the details (scientists).

Nonetheless, in the past two hundred years science has been amazingly productive leading people to believe that science 1) is infallible and 2) can answer any question. These two beliefs are untrue and it is important to distinguish between was is true and what is untrue about science. That is a theme that crops up over and over again in Crichton's works and it is the theme we will take up next.

Some Background

I have been reading, listening to recorded books, and watching movies in an attempt to get my arms around the vast quantity of Crichton's work. I am making good progress but there is still a lot to do especially if I want to study it in depth. So, I thought I would sprinkle in a few posts on background issues that are key to understanding what MC has done. Over the next few weeks or months, I will toss in posts to address the following questions:

1) What is Science?
2) What is Technology?
3) What is the relationship between Science and Technology?
4) What is the Ethics of Technology?
5) What do we mean when we say something is True?
6) Why do most people disregard the Truth?
7) Why are Writing and Storytelling becoming increasingly more important?

Understanding the answers to these questions is key to understanding Micheal Crichton. And hopefully, it will peak your interest enough to keep you reading.