An Open Question(s) on Science and Technology
While working on another post a very interesting question came to mind. This other work is one of my classic anti tech tirades this time focusing on the overhyped “advice” that you should “learn to code.” I will expound at length on why that may not be the best idea when that piece is eventually published but one of the arguments I made early on was that it would probably be better if instead of admonishing more people to learn to code we focused more of our resources on getting them to learn how to think critically and problem solve (i.e. teach people about and how to use the scientific method). To support my argument I was intending to say something along the lines of “there would be no computers to code without science and its method first facilitating the discoveries and inventions that eventually made the computer possible.”
I had to go to the bathroom at that point and as I stood whizzing away I began to wonder if anyone could object to that statement and if so how would they? In other words could someone argue that science was not a necessary prerequisite for the creation/invention of the computer and one could have been developed eventually even in the absence of science as an existing or practiced discipline. I then tried to brainstorm some scenarios on how that might be possible and outside of magic or alien intervention I came up blank. Then I remembered that I had read something about this exact question some time ago, or at least I think I remembered, and I even think it might have been on Medium and possibly in a piece by Martin Rezny on an unrelated topic.
That is neither here nor there because I am asking for input from my vast following here and now today. I want to know what you think.
Could a computer or something very near like it with virtually identical capabilities and characteristics ever be developed/created/invented on world that did not have any knowledge of science or the scientific method but was identical in every other way to ours?
A different yet similar way of phrasing the question could be,
Is science a prerequisite of technology?
The second version of the question has the virtue of being more open to interpretation as the definition of technology is much less fixed than the definition of computer. It also has the drawback of being more open to interpretation. Pick your poison and take a shot at either or both. Personally I am much more interested in version 1 since I already have come to my own conclusion and am curious to see if I can be persuaded otherwise.
As always the comments are open. I ask all my corporate and bot followers to participate as well. You all do make up ~75–80% of my total following so your opinions definitely count and are valued. It might be very interesting to get a bot’s take on this question given the importance of computers to their livelihood and existence. I am also curious if any of my corporate followers see any way to make a buck off of this issue, greedy sons of bitches.