Technology is defined by the Oxford dictionary as \u201cscientific knowledge used in practical ways in industry, for example in designing new machines.\u201d While this definition highlights one way in which science and technology intersect, this definition is based on the idea that scientific knowledge is the necessary precursor to technological advancement.<\/p>\n
The misconception that practical discoveries emerge from pure science is common, yet it is an idea that is commonly countered by historians of technology. In his book Technology Matters, <\/em>historian David Nye points to instances where innovations were the precursor to the scientific understanding that followed to support his claim that, \u201cfor most of human history technology came first; theory came later and tried to make sense of practical results.\u201d(9<\/em>) Nye discusses Thomas Edison\u2019s light bulb, the Wright Brother\u2019s airplane, and Newcomen\u2019s steam engine as influential technologies of today which were conceived through trial and error techniques rather than the mathematical equations and scientific theories that explain these technological breakthroughs.<\/p>\n Yet the Oxford dictionary not only fails to consider that not all technology is derived from\u00a0\u201cscientific knowledge\u201d but it also fails to incorporate in its definition the importance that society\u00a0<\/em>plays in both shaping and evolving through technological discoveries. While the term\u00a0\u201ctechnology\u201d has developed an increasingly narrow definition in our society \u2013 one which\u00a0conveys images of iPhones, Facebook, and Silicon Valley \u2013 historians and philosophers of\u00a0science have pointed out the ways in which machine and science cannot be separated from its\u00a0social pattern.<\/p>\n Karl Popper, one of the 20th<\/sup> century\u2019s most influential philosophers\u2019 states in Science:\u00a0<\/em>Conjectures and Refutations <\/em>that \u201call \u2013 or very nearly all \u2013 scientific theories originate from\u00a0myths.\u201d But what determines a myth? A blend of imagination and storytelling? And how does\u00a0that translate into hypotheses? The conception of hypotheses is something that philosophers\u00a0struggle to explain. Yet it is clear that the myths and stories that predate hypotheses are both\u00a0molded and accepted by a society: <\/em>the assumptions and biases of the \u201cimaginer\u201d along with the\u00a0societal norms which dictate whose \u201cmyths\u201d will be listened to.<\/p>\n Thomas Khum\u2019s Paradigm Shift philosophy demonstrates another example of one way in which\u00a0society and technology are inherently intertwined. Kuhn\u2019s Paradigm interpretation states\u00a0that a paradigm (the \u201cpractice that defines a scientific discipline at a certain point in time\u201d)\u00a0dictates the standard assumptions and way of looking at problems throughout a certain\u00a0time period.<\/p>\n However, the choice of one paradigm over the other is not based on scientific objectivity or\u00a0rationality, but rather is historically contingent. Thus, the \u201cparadigm\u201d from which scientific and\u00a0technological discoveries are made within is inherently dependent on the cultural assumptions\u00a0and societal values of the time in which they are made. With \u201cscientific knowledge\u201d often\u00a0following innovations, and social pattern playing an integral role in shaping science,\u00a0discoveries in science and technology are not constrained by our \u201cscientific knowledge,\u201d but\u00a0rather by the pitfalls in our society which marginalize new perspectives and voices.<\/p>\n In the United States, women were originally excluded from technical education at university-level institutes such as MIT and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This exclusion mirrors a continued gap between men and women in STEM fields. Technology companies now dominate the world\u2019s largest companies measured by market capitalization. Yet out of the big five tech companies, not one CEO is a woman. In fact, only 11%<\/a>\u00a0of executive positions in Silicon Valley companies are held by women. With a predominant patriarchal climate in STEM, it is unsurprising that women working in STEM jobs are more likely than men (and women from other sectors) to say they have experienced workplace discrimination due to their gender.<\/p>\n Technology is not only an indicator of the development of humankind, but an indicator of the marginalization of women through time. When women are pushed to the margins of science and technological innovation, not only are we losing perspectives that may expand our scientific knowledge and technological advancements, but we are simultaneously creating<\/em> a society which will continue replicate this marginalization. With our 21st<\/sup> century society always on lookout for the next cutting-edge breakthrough we must inquire: is marginalization the limiting factor of the technology?<\/p>\n Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Annas, Pamela, et al. \u201cWomen and Science \u2014 Introduction.\u201d\u00a0The Radical Teacher<\/em>, no. 30, 1986, pp. 1\u20132.\u00a0JSTOR<\/em>, www.jstor.org\/stable\/20709511. Accessed 6 Sept. 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n Nye, David E.. Technology Matters: Questions to Live With, MIT Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Ventral. Created from Colby on 2018-09-05 16:18:25.<\/p>\n Parker, C. (2020, August 21). Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity. Retrieved September 06, 2020, from https:\/\/www.pewsocialtrends.org\/2018\/01\/09\/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity\/<\/p>\n Popper, Karl. \u201cConjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.\u201d Routledge and Kegan Paul. London, Melbourne and Henley, 2010.<\/p>\n Jiang, Lijing. \u201cLecture Part 2 : Kuhn\u2019s Paradigm.\u201d<\/p>\n