Difference between science and technology

What are the differences between these two concepts that are on the one hand science and on the other hand technology?

To answer this question, it is first important to go back to the respective definitions of science and technique. Then we will have to understand what is the place of technique in philosophy, and the role of technique nowadays.

Definition of science:

Exact knowledge that one has of something. In particular, a system of rational or experimental knowledge about a given object.

  • Definitions Science

Definition of technique:

Designates the set of procedures that one must methodically employ for an art, for research, in a trade.

The technique in philosophy:

Aristotle defines the technique as “a disposition to produce accompanied by a true rule”.

Technique is thus the set of rules defining the means to an end.

Technique today:

For Heidegger, modern society no longer sees in technique the rules necessary for an art, but a way of thinking of a man who wants to manage everything, to calculate.

Link and distinction between science and technique

Science is of the order of theory, contemplative, whereas theory is of the order of practice, of action.

The technique supposes knowledge, a science. The opposite is not true: science can be a pure science and never apply to technique.

Technique is the implementation of science.

General Knowledge: science

One thought on “Difference between science and technology

  1. Pay attention to the content of this site. It constitutes a good initiative – although, the councils of preparation are not rare. But some of his articles starting with this one are at best just leads, at worst a ready-to-think beast. Don’t learn from isolated quotes, it’s not helpful. Instead, choose two or three classic books that can be widely used! More targeted remark on this article: science as exact knowledge is a very open to criticism. We prefer to say that it is an effective explanation. On the one hand in terms of evolution, since scientists no longer pride themselves on having access to reality in the mode of knowledge. But it is above all on the plane of reason that this mode has disappeared: science is (often) capable of explaining, but not of making things known in themselves (see Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason). Well, I won’t go much further than the first two words, the rest is not very fine, I simply want to encourage critical thinking! But all the same, because there is something that jumps out at you: what is this aberrant distinction between a (common?) definition of technology, then a definition in philosophy, that moreover reduced to Aristotle? Let’s be clear: it’s nonsense. Gentlemen students, a little rigor, and if it lacks, a little silence.

Comments are closed.