This is an archive of past discussions about Technology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We should introduce categorizations based on different criteria, e.g. "Material which the technology acts upon", "Principle of working", "Functional: human sensory modality concerned with the technology", etc.

(we need some way to cover for example, both the technology of television and the content of television, which are greatly different topics with the same name)

How about a "Mass Media" category? It would also cover radio, printing press, etc.

What is the difference between technology and engineering?

Engineering applies human traits such as imagination, judgement, integrity, and intellectual discipline to existing human knowledgebases to create or utilize technology safely and efficiently. user:mirwin

Am I correct in thinking this page places too much emphasis on recent or conspicuous technologoy? Wouldn't the lever, pully, and wheel be considered vital advances in technology? If not, how long do you imagine it will be before the pump and microchip are considered trivial? Why not include irrigation, literacy, geometry, etc.? --KQ

I agree with KQ (above), and further suggest that the references to industry and commerce make this definition too narrow. Technology can be for warfare, for the fighting of disease, for the production of more aesthetically pleasing music, for the more accurate measurement of time so that monks can pray 6 times each day at the proper times, etc.

How about:

Technology is "the application of knowledge to affect the human condition" 1.

(The quote isn't on that URL, but it's from the forthcoming book mentioned on that page.)

Started alphabetizing the major header/index listing and linking into some orphan pages to provide an initial hiearchy.

Deleted these below as they seemed to me to be procedures or fields of application rather than tools or technology. My reasoning is that a guitar is technology while country music is something else ..... weapons are technology while espionage is probably tactics? Camera or microfilm can be either a library resource or a spy tool. Espionage is not a technology but a human activity.

• Espionage and Intelligence gathering
  • Cryptology and Cryptography and Cryptanalysis
  • Echelon

I put Cryptography and Cryptology back because it seemed to be a category of techniques. While used is espionage they can be used for privacy, police work, DNA decoding? etc. I agree with kq above and some others. For header or lead line definition how about:

The field of technology applies human knowledge of the physical or natural sciences to accomplish a specific human goal or purpose.

Thus a medical researcher monitoring a heart beat with a stesthocrope or IRIG B telemetry channel is applying technology but is not engineering it .

Likewise an electrician installing a 3 phase induction motor can be viewed as a technologist but not a scientist or engineer. He is applying knowledge discovered or created by others to solve a specific problem ... hence he is a technologist or specilized technician .... electrician.

Comments or alternate discussuion is welcome. user:mirwin

"The field of technology applies human knowledge of the physical or natural sciences to accomplish a specific human goal or purpose." You can cut the first "human". The second "human" is important although arguable: If technology invents new technology for its own sake, e.g. just because man has become educated by technology (writing, the school system, mass media) to invent technology, or because negative side effects of technology must be treated by technology whose side effects in turn must be treated ... and again until infinity - then, is that still technology or is it "culture"? Culture (in the word sense of "civilization") is the father of technology but doesn´t define as "to accomplish a specific human goal or purpose" but simply as "the outcome of mankind" (simplified, as I didn´t yet consult Wiki about this).

BTW, why doesn´t someone update wiki/technology according to the proposals which have been made here? Too shy? Grasso

For now, I will note that chimpanzees use tools (sticks to acquire termites) or technology. Clearly you are correct that the first "human" can be removed and the chimp behavior would appear to imply the second use is "incorrect" as well. Regarding update: Big stacks that this indexes into, I have been waiting to encounter the fellow wikipedians before tackling tough sections. We do need a good general summary and index for technology .... I will try to draft something within the next couple of days. user:mirwin

Is it desirable to have so many bulleted items in a list with no text to make them cohere? What are these lists of?

(preceeding comment by 216.102.200.82 20:35, January 17, 2003)

The list was of links to different fields of technology or specific technology items. A click through index is desirable to many potential readers. I use it to browse myself. mirwin 05:33, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I do not think that the two recording items should appear under acoustics, however I cannot think of a better place or another heading. Any suggestions. In fact recording, live sound reinforcement, and acoustics, though all dealing with sound are all pretty independent, maybe they should all appear as sub-headings to audio.

(preceeding comment by Cnaughton 17:59, February 23, 2003)

I removed this section [that follows]. There is useful information here, but aside from being very non-neutral, it completely overwhelms the page at this point. It only discusses a comparatively narrow aspect of the concept. --Robert Merkel 02:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Technology in ideology

Very often, technology and engineering circles assume that "new" means "better". The notion of appropriate technology developed in the 20th century to describe situations where it was not desirable to use very new technologies or those that required access to some centralized infrastructure or parts or skills imported from elsewhere. The eco-village movement evolved in part due to this concern. Intermediate technology, more of an economics concern, refers to compromises between central and expensive technologies of developed nations and those which developing nations find most effective to deploy given an excess of labour and scarcity of cash. In general, an "appropriate" technology will also be "intermediate".

Those who promote transhumanism, posthumanism or technological singularity make exactly contrary assumptions. Such ideologues regard technological development as morally good.

In economics, definitions or assumptions of progress or of growth often derive from one of the above assumptions. Challenging prevailing assumptions about technology and its usefulness has led to ideas like uneconomic growth or measuring well-being. One could view these, and economics itself, as technologies, specifically, as persuasion technology - a concern covered in its own separate article.

In warfare, technological escalation is often a feature of an arms race, and may result in new military technology.

In fiction, fictional technology often plays a role in the story, especially in science fiction, which depends on such ideas.

In my view there is only one mainstream technology, all the rest are suppliers of additional know-how, providers of lesser solutions. The mainstream technology is aiming and shooting - moving whatever intended into/right on target, from nano stage to precision cosmology level, at all times and universally. This concept could help you rearrange the zig-zag courses of telling about the individual achievements of scientists and other busy-bodies in history who "cannot see the forest from the trees", as we "Martians" say. Apogr 21:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) Of course, I meant to write "cannot see the woods, because of the trees...."

What is the difference between technology and engineering?

(preceeding comment by KoyaanisQatsi 09:38, July 4, 2001)

quote from engineering:

"Scientists work on science; engineers work on technology."

We should probably paraphrase this for a better def of technology, since the "there are two different defs of tech" is really bad IMHO MarSch 10:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note, that definition of engineering is woefully inadequate. The engineering page has been updated to reflect a more comprehensive one. Steven McCrary 15:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to propose an outline for the article. This may be ambitious, but technology is a very big topic. Please make any suggestions and alterations as you see fit.

1. Science, Engineering and Technology
2. History of technology
3. The nature of technology
   1. General characteristics
   2. Types
4. Funds for innovation
   1. Government
      1. Military technology
      2. Other
   2. Private source
      1. For profit
      2. Non-profit
5. Impacts
   1. Sociological
      1. People
      2. Beliefs/Ethics
      3. Lifestyle
   2. Institutions and Groups
   3. International
   4. Environmental
6. Control
7. Technology and philosophy (to replace Technology in ideology)
8. Theories
   1. Technicism, optimism, pessimism
   2. Others
9. Technology in developing countries
10. ?Concepts in technology?
11. References
12. See also
13. External links

Comments and modifications are welcome, please!!

Steven McCrary 15:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think the outline is fine, nothing is left out as far as I can tell. The article needs inline-notes with page numbers for WP:FAC.--Fenice 16:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-11T16:44:00.000Z","author":"Fenice","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fenice-2005-08-11T16:44:00.000Z-A_proposed_outline","replies":[]}}-->

You have Wood but what about plants generally ? eg I can use Stinging Nettle to make Cordage, Docleaf to each the occasional sting from the Nettles, Soapwort to was my hands etc etc

Regds Ross Filippi [email protected]

Ross, if you are suggesting changing wood to vegetation, I like it. Go ahead and add your suggestions. Thanks, Steven McCrary 23:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Steven, thanks - that's done. I have a number of suggestions for additions/changes on this subject as it has been a long term interest, I presume this is the correct forum? Ross 20-08-05

Steven, what is this redlinked term 1001 technologies supposed to refer to? For right now, this should be explained (at least, very briefly) in the text of the article rather than redlinked. --arkuat (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-22T04:10:00.000Z","author":"Eric Forste","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eric_Forste-2005-08-22T04:10:00.000Z-1001_technologies","replies":[],"displayName":"arkuat"}}-->

I have two definitions that might be worth some consideration;

1) The application of knowledge and/or resources to solve a problem. eg

a) The application of dockleaf to ease the pain of stinging nettle
b) The use a stone or antler to break flint or open a nut
c) Using an axe to cut down a tree or fire to make a dugout canoe.

All are resources requiring knowledge and skill to apply them.

On the other hand you could choose to regard knowledge along with raw materials, skills, processes and tools etc collectively as resources. In this case it could just be simplified to;

1b) The application of resources to solve a problem.

Moving on . . .

If the little green guys should decide to turn up in the near future it would probably be safe to conclude that their 'technology' is superior to ours and when we make that judgement we would be refering to their Science, Maths & Engineering ie their level of knowledge (Science & Math) and their ability to apply it(Engineering).

This leads to the following defintion;

2) ~ can also be used as an encompasing term to describe the level of achievement in science, mathematics and engineering of a group or culture.

Comments . . .

Note that so far there is no mention of "Human", humanity has nothing to do with it - many animals have been seen to use tools and resources to solve problems, and don't forget the little green guys . . .

There are a number of sentences in the article that appear to draw conclusions which could be debated. For example;

I believe the McGinn definition ~ 'a human "culture-forming" activity' is either wrong (implies the wrong conclusion) or is taken out of context &/or incomplete.

Technology is only one factor affecting culture (note that I didn't say human culture) others for example being; environment, population, population density, demographics, race, other cultures etc, all serving collectively to 'influence' culture.

If anything these same factors along with a certain amount of 'bootstrap effect' would influence the technology so that there is probably in fact a reciprocal effect.

For these reasons I would be very leery of describing technology as "culture-forming".

Also the sentence 'Humans always used tools to feed and protect themselves' Did they? supporting evidence or example?

The further back you go the less evidence there is to draw conclusions from. All we can really do perhaps is to combine the evidence we do have with observations of contemporary animal behaviour and draw inferences.

In the History of Technology section I think Fire should have its own Heading.

After basic tools like rocks and sticks, the use and then mastery of fire is a key turning point in technological evolution. Moreover many of the subsequent key turning points in the history and evolution of technology are marked by new levels of mastery over fire.

Initially fire would have been used for Warmth, Protection & Cooking and then the Shaping & Hardening of Wood, followed by making Clay products, Cements and Metals (Copper, Bronze, Iron). The discovery and development of new Fuels (Charcoal, Coal, Coke, Hydrocarbons and Nuclear), and Engines (Steam, IC, Jet, Rockets) along with the effect of war also often marked points where the development of new technologies accelerated.

Fire in all it forms is still one of the priciple tools that we use to shape and manipulate the world around us.

I would like to suggest a revision to the History of Technology section as follows;

2.1 Animal, Vegetable, Mineral

  2.1.1 Raw Materials
  2.1.1 Primitive Tools

2.2 Fire

  2.2.1 Wood
  2.2.2 Clay - Bricks, Pottery
  2.2.3 Cements - Mortar, Concrete
  2.2.4 Metals

2.3 Fuels

  2.3.1 Wood, Charcoal
  2.3.2 Coal, Coke
  2.3.3 Hydrocarbons
  2.3.4 Nuclear

2.4 Engines

  2.4.1 Mills (Water and Wind)
  2.4.2 Steam 
  2.4.3 Internal Combustion
  2.4.4 Rockets and Jets

2.5 Accellerants

  2.5.1 Communications
  2.5.2 Population & Population Density
  2.5.3 War

Conclusion . . .

I hope this helps some and doesn't offend anyone or come across too pompous - I'm a bit leery of editing the main page directly without some kind of feedback/discussion/agreement as this seems to cause ructions on occasion, besides I'm still getting my head around the editor.

Ross Filippi 230805

Ross, no offense taken on the comments offered, in fact, just the opposite, good job. Here are some responses:

Re: Definition of technology: I do not believe that one single definition of technology is necessary, nevertheless your definition seems appropriate for that purpose. But, I would not be in favor of eliminating the other definitions.

Re: Definition and "human": I like the definition, but my feeling about leaving "human" out of the defintions is not that strong. I am not sure about animals' use of technology being comparable to humans' use. And, with no evidence of extraterrestial life, that discussion goes no where with me. Still, I really have no strong feeling about leaving "human" out of the definition. So go for it.

Re:Definition and "culture": Not sure that I understand these comments; but, let's see if I do: Yes, many things are part of culture formation, including those mentioned, still they are culture forming, so why not attach that description to them? The reciprocal effects not withstanding, technology does influence culture, so why not state that? If needed, the relationship among technology, culture, and other elements of the world could be included.

Re: Evidence of early uses of technology: The only reference about the earliest uses of technology, even from the experts, would be purely speculative as the one given in the article. However, those references would be expert anthropologists' speculations, not some amateur (me), so would that suffice?

Re: History of technology: Looks good to me.

Input is appreciated! -Steven McCrary 01:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Steve, Thanks & a couple of clarifications . . .

I wasn't suggesting a single definition of technology I was putting Both up for consideration - I am quite comfortable with multiple definitions . . .

Yea I knew the "extraterrestrial" and "animal" examples were both problematic but am concerned that the page seems a bit human-centric.

Still when you see a chimp first prepare a stick, then use it to extract honey from a tree hollow, or a baboon washing food in the sea prior to eating, or a sea otter using two separate stones as a hammer & anvil (the anvil resting on its belly) to open a sea urchin - well it makes you wonder - is it just the beginning for them? . . . Yes I am speculating but watching that chimp make the stick to just the right size . . .

Perhaps I'm being a bit pernickity about the "culture forming" phrase. You seem to have a broader interpretation of the sentence, whereas when I read it it came across to me as meaning the primary activity that shaped human culture - exclusive of the other factors I referred to above (hence my wondering if it was possibly out of context).

The thing is, I'm conscious that the page needs to stay reasonably brief rather than heading into thesis or book territory while covering the basics and wherever possible leaving out any conclusions, speculation or bias (hence my concern about 'human').

Having said that, I'm also conscious that my own suggestions may be a bit thesis-ish and could enlarge the page overmuch (note that I've modified them again - slightly). It has occurred to me that a single paragraph be written for each of the suggested sections (eg Fire) with each term highlighted and linked to its own page if available as it arises in the wording of the paragraph. This would keep it brief but cover the ground.

Ross 280805

I concur. I also modified the definitions some. Steven McCrary 22:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yea saw that - cool

Did a quick RFI last night and have begun to add the stuff I suggested previously - This has necessitated some re-disorganising of some passages, additions to others etc to ensure the flow and content are consistent.

Wanted to do each section / sub-section as a paragraph as suggested above but hasn't worked out very well - so have kept them separate for the moment and added section stubs to allow for/invite other contributions - it can allways be trimmed up later . . . probably broke some formatting rules, sigh

Have also added some links. Have noticed in the process of doing this that there are some inconsistencies between subjects.

Have not yet added the accellerants section - need to check some data.

Gotta stop now - it's luvely and sunny outside . . . .

Rossfi 14:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-29T14:03:00.000Z","author":"Rossfi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rossfi-2005-08-29T14:03:00.000Z-Definitions_&_Comments","replies":[]}}-->

Added a couple of new paragraphs and some more links, to the beginning of the History section by way of further clarification. Really need to trim up the rest of the section but that would be losing data as it isn't covered in iether of the main 'History of Technology' articles.

Rossfi 13:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-30T13:21:00.000Z","author":"Rossfi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rossfi-2005-08-30T13:21:00.000Z-Definitions_&_Comments","replies":[]}}-->