If you were to ask the public about their opinion on modern science, their attention would immediately turn towards smartphones, computers, cars, airplanes, rockets, medical technologies, and other recent inventions and innovations. However, all this falls under the umbrella of technology, not science. Technology is one thing, and science is another.
Science is a philosophical method through which we strive to achieve a deeper understanding of nature. It encompasses ideas, theories, and knowledge. On the other hand, technology comprises inventions, applications, and skills that provide material benefits to humanity. Technology preceded modern science by thousands of years. Humans invented the wheel, pottery, hunting tools, sewing, oil lamps, glass, water channels, and more through repeated experiences and attempts without the need for modern science.
However, the relationship between science and technology is complex. Technology has contributed to the advancement of modern science through inventions that have aided our observations, such as telescopes and microscopes. Meanwhile, science, through organizing ideas and providing general laws about nature, has contributed to the development of technology, leading to a time where distinguishing between science and technology has become challenging. In fact, the irony is that technology, rather than scientific reasoning, has sometimes become the reason for believing in and idolizing modern science.
The pursuit of understanding nature, searching for general laws, and studying causal relationships leads to scientific knowledge. And because knowledge is a driver of utility, the scientific revolution has led to a technological revolution, even though inventions are merely a byproduct of science. The true essence of modern science lies in scientific papers, which are nothing more than organized and abstract ideas. In essence, the goal of science is to uncover what exists, rather than inventing what does not exist, as technology does.
With the close connection between science and technology and the general confusion caused by their concepts, a new dilemma has emerged with the recurring question of “What is the benefit?” Basic scientific knowledge, in most cases, has been and continues to be pursued independently of its material benefits. It arises from human needs that go beyond satisfying instincts, such as contemplation, the love of exploration, and the attempt to understand reality. It stems from the inherent human curiosity that constantly seeks to grasp the truth. If scientists were asked a hundred years ago about any material benefit from their study of atoms, they might not have found an answer to that question. And if we hypothetically assume that they were influenced by your words and studied something else with direct utility, many of the inventions on which civilization relies today would have vanished. Modern science, in its isolation from technology, has brought about a revolution. The dilemma is that ignoring the question of “What is the benefit?” has led to the greatest benefits we witness today.
I pondered in a mental experiment, what if modern science had no material benefit and its utility was confined to satisfying our curiosity in understanding the world through abstract facts? Imagine if all we inherited from the scientific method was knowledge without any practical applications. For example, someone tells you that a hammer falls faster than a feather due to air resistance, and that heavy and light objects fall at the same speed in the absence of air. It’s just an idea that explains the world more accurately, but it would never benefit you materially. If science, as it is now, were merely a mode of thinking that seeks abstract knowledge and had no technological returns, how would its standing be in society? I then directed this question to a number of scientists, philosophers, and thinkers around the world. Here are their answers (Please think about the question before reading their responses):
“What you describe is nearly the case in Newton’s time, and yet the European intellectual community was very enthusiastic about his work. He was honored to be buried at Westminster Abbey. I don’t know if the sentiments would be the same today.”
– Physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg
“If we assume that the intended benefits here are tangible, material, and financial benefits, rather than personal benefits such as attempting to understand the world, then I believe that the status of science would be similar to that of philosophy or literature today. In fact, it could be said that the status of science would be akin to that held by natural philosophy in the Middle Ages: pursued by a few passionate and intellectual elites with higher education who appreciate its insightful vision, but not valued by society as a whole.”
– Chemist and recipient of the “Francis P. Garvan-John M. Olin Medal” Lawrence Principe
“I believe that science would appear very different if there were no direct technological applications, perhaps more akin to science in the late Victorian era. Science would mostly be an activity confined to a minority aristocratic class rather than being something taught to all school students. I think that fundamental scientific theories (such as quantum mechanics or molecular biology) would remain similar to what they are, but the infrastructure of the scientific enterprise would be completely different.”
– Professor of Philosophy of Science and recipient of the “Lakatos Award” Samir Okasha
“Perhaps the direct answer to this question is that the status of science, in this case, would be closer to the status of pure mathematics, or perhaps even metaphysics. This means that the celebration of the status of science would be limited to those who are engaged in it, alongside a small number of individuals who are fascinated by scientific curiosity! Science appears like a fruitful tree, and it is unfortunate that many wait for the fruits to fall on their own. If that fails to happen, there will only be a few who are willing to exert the effort to climb the branches and pick its fruits. These are the scientists, in particular, and those with scientific curiosity in general.”
– Philosopher, linguist, and Professor Fahd Al-Mutairi
“Based on its status in the 17th and 18th centuries when there were no notable practical applications, I believe that the status of science today would be similar to the status of philosophy today. It would remain a branch of philosophy as it has been for thousands of years, specifically natural philosophy. Western philosophies have had some influence on society, religion, social values, political movements, and so on since ancient Greek times, and I believe science has a similar impact. However, in the mid-19th century, science became highly specialized to an extent that only a very small percentage, even among the educated, can appreciate. Consequently, there is little direct connection between science and practical applications in daily life, and I don’t see its impact being remotely close to the magnitude of its impact on society today.”
– Physicist, historian, and author Stephen Goldman
“I believe that science would be seen as a project confined to a particular group, undertaken by a slightly divergent set of individuals. It might have a status similar to that of avant-garde art today. As for its funding, it would decrease drastically.”
– Veteran professor and recipient of the “Lakatos Award” Philip Kitcher
“There were no direct benefits from Newton’s theory of gravity or Darwin’s theory of evolution, just as is the case today with theoretical physics (black holes, string theory). Therefore, I don’t think we should conclude that the status of science depends on its material applications. However, if we go back to the late 19th century (with Pasteur as an example or Edison), we will see that the close connection between science and material applications became very prominent. The societal investment in science became linked to expectations of practical applications. I believe that the only way to answer the question is to contemplate science before approximately 1850.”
– Historian and author David Wootton
“Scientific research aims for truth and does not seek direct utility. This is why scientific theories, unlike technologies, do not grant patents. Basic science is independent or self-driven, not subsidiary, unlike technology, which is subsidiary or dependent on others. There are personal goals of science, such as satisfying intellectual curiosity. Human beings are inherently curious and inclined towards knowledge, as expressed by Aristotle. However, contemporary technology comes to utilize basic science for purposes and benefits, and in this case, it can be said that science has material utility. If it didn’t have this utility, its social status would be similar to that of astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, and history. These are scientific fields that do not receive sponsorship from private companies.”
– Contemporary philosophy professor and philosophy of science researcher Salah Ismail
“I believe it will be like philosophy or pure mathematics.”
– Physicist and philosopher Jeffrey Babb
“I believe it will be something like art, literature, music, and philosophy: a source of pleasure and inspiration for those who appreciate it.”
– Theoretical physicist and author Carlo Rovelli
T1616
