text:
+ *'''[[Argument: Govt is often only thing big enough to take on biggest challenges| Govt is often only thing big enough to take on biggest challenges]]''' [http://www.governmentisgood.com/ GovernmentIsGood.com]: "more energetic government is necessary in a whole range of areas in our society, not just in the financial sector. The anti-government philosophy of deregulation has not only proved a disaster for the financial system, but also for food safety, energy policy, and environmental protection. And cutting back taxes has led to school budgets being slashed, public safety workers being laid off, poor children being denied medical care, and bridges and roads falling into dangerous disrepair. The election of Barack Obama signaled that many Americans were beginning to realize that government is not the problem; it is actually the only solution to most of the pressing problems we face as a nation – including infrastructure decay, rising unemployment, global warming, and a worsening health care crisis."
+ *'''[[Argument: Robust government has been an amazing force for good| Robust government has been an amazing force for good]]''' [http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=6&p=2 GovernmentIsGood.com]: "But what exactly does it mean to say that government is good? It means that, on balance, government programs have a very positive impact on the lives of all Americans – that government has been a powerful force for good in our society. It is not an exaggeration to say that a good portion of the improvement in the quality of Americans' lives during the last 100 years has been due to the efforts of our federal, state, and local governments. Consider, for instance, the wide variety of vital roles and functions that big government plays in our society. Things like providing roads and sewers and other essential infrastructure facilities, preventing economic depressions, eliminating horrible diseases like polio and smallpox, ensuring drinkable water and breathable air, dispensing justice, providing retirement security, preventing business abuses, sponsoring stunning scientific breakthroughs, feeding the hungry, recalling unsafe products, educating our children, reducing workplace injuries and deaths, responding to disasters and emergencies, preventing crime, protecting civil liberties, rescuing endangered species, ensuring the safety of drugs, guarding our national security, caring for the elderly, and so on."
- *'''[[Argument: Dems believe in ensuring equal opportunity through social programs| Dems believe in ensuring equal opportunity through social programs]]''' [http://www.helium.com/items/1904402-differences-between-republican-and-democrats Paul Shlesinger. "Democrat vs. Republican: Political philosophies." Helium]: "They believe that the role of the Federal government is to ensure equality. This which translates into support for tax increases, particularly on the wealthy and big businesses, which can be used by the government to fund social programs designed to help the poor and middle class. Labor unions and minority groups are often attracted to the party based on its fiscal philosophy prompting equality."
- *'''Democrats believe public good is paramount.''' [http://www.danshafer.com/onemind/?p=1701 "Liberal Philosophy, Conservative Philosophy and the Great American Center." OneMind. May 21st, 2010]: "Faced with a seemingly irreconcilable conflict between the general welfare and the good of the individual, liberals will tend to support the public good and conservatives will tend to favor the individual's rights and position." +
+ *'''[[Argument: Republican free enterprise is foundation of US economic success| Republican free enterprise is foundation of US economic success]]''' [http://www.wakullagop.org/why_republican.html "Why I'm a Republican." Republican Party of Wakulla County]: "I Believe... The free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none."
+ *'''[[Argument: Democrats do not trust leaving free markets alone| Democrats do not trust leaving free markets alone]]''' [http://www.azgop.org/site/c.qtK2KeMSKuG/b.5810127/k.A1E2/GOP_vs_Democrats.htm "GOP vs. Democrats." Arizona Republican Party]: "Democrats believe the economy is too complicated to be left to free enterprise alone, and therefore must be subjected to ever-increasing controls by the federal government."
- *'''Republicans want to tax all people equally/fairly.''' [http://www.helium.com/items/1904402-differences-between-republican-and-democrats Paul Shlesinger. "Democrat vs. Republican: Political philosophies." Helium]: "The fiscal philosophy of the Republican Party can be summarized by the word "fairness". Fiscally speaking, Republicans believe that the Federal government should play a passive role in attempting to better society because they believe that private companies and local and state governments are more effective at meeting the people's needs than a large Federal government. They believe that the main role of the Federal government is to ensure fairness. This means reducing taxes and regulations, especially for businesses, which can grow the economy and create jobs. Small business owners and non-minorities are often attracted to the party based on its fiscal philosophy promoting fairness." + *'''[[Argument: Dems see economy as fixed pie to be sliced-up for special interests| Dems see economy as fixed pie to be sliced-up for special interests]]''' [http://www.azgop.org/site/c.qtK2KeMSKuG/b.5810127/k.A1E2/GOP_vs_Democrats.htm "GOP vs. Democrats." Arizona Republican Party]: "Democrats say we are 'entering an era of limitations' and therefore must lower our individual economic expectations. Democrats see the economy as a fixed pie to be sliced up for special interests, rather than as a pie than can be made bigger by the industriousness and innovation of Americans unfettered by ill-conceived government regulations."
- ===Social Structure===
- *'''Society based on communal responsibility.'''
- ===Social Security===
- ===Taxes=== + ===Death penalty ===
- |WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| +
- ====Democrat==== +
- ''Click "edit" and write arguments here'' +
- |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| +
- |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| +
- ===Death penalty:=== +
- + ===Torture===
- ===Tactics: === +
- *'''[[Argument: Republicans use fear to win votes| Republicans use fear to win votes]]''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html Paul Krugman. "Fear Strikes Out." New York Times. March 21st, 2010]: "the emotional core of opposition to [health care] reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency. It wasn't just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor's Business Daily declaring that health reform is "affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color." It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives. And let's be clear: the campaign of fear hasn't been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.'s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that 'freedom dies a little bit today' and accused Democrats of 'totalitarian tactics,' which I believe means the process known as 'voting.'" + *'''Most Democrats believe torture is always unjust.''' Many Democrats are opposed to the use of torture against individuals apprehended and held prisoner by the U.S. military, and hold that categorizing such prisoners as unlawful combatants does not release the U.S. from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Democrats contend that torture is inhumane, decreases the United States' moral standing in the world, and produces questionable results. Democrats largely spoke out against waterboarding.
+ *'''Some Reps believe torture can be just in "ticking time-bomb".''' Some Republicans believe that torture can be justified in the unique scenario in which a ticking time-bomb is known, and torture has the potential to reveal the location so as to save lives.
+ *'''Republicans believe in more flexible interrogation techniques.''' Many support techniques such as waterboarding, believing that it does not qualify as "torture."
- ===Heroes=== +
+ ===Tactics ===
- *'''Democratic heroes include Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.''' + *'''[[Argument: Republicans use fear to win votes| Republicans use fear to win votes]]''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html Paul Krugman. "Fear Strikes Out." New York Times. March 21st, 2010]: "the emotional core of opposition to [health care] reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency. It wasn't just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor's Business Daily declaring that health reform is "affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color." It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives. And let's be clear: the campaign of fear hasn't been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.'s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that 'freedom dies a little bit today' and accused Democrats of 'totalitarian tactics,' which I believe means the process known as 'voting.'"
- *'''Democrats have accomplished more while in office.''' [http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2007/06/12/why_im_a_democrat/#ixzz0uq2nnaeg "Why I'm a Democrat." Time. June 12th, 2007]: "I'm a Democrat because we're the party that won 2 world wars, ended segregation in America, contained Communism, founded the UN, set up Social Security, saved the Kosavars from genocide, produced the longest economic expansion in American history, and avoided nuclear confrontation in Cuba." +


How bad? How about so bad that these movies featuring Kenya were not shot in Kenya presumably because of the 'tax regime' not run from Times Towers?
Unlike the other movies on this list, Tomb Raider was actually shot in Kenya, in the scenic Hell's Gate national Park. It features here because of the review a crew member gave of their experience during the shooting.
Hell's Gates panoramic gorges and cliffs provided a scenic background. The National Park has been the location for other movies such as King Solomon's Mines and the historical epic Mountains of the Moon. The crew hired members of the Pokot tribe from Loruk, a small village near Lake Baringo. They play the mysterious tribe that Lara Croft discovers in Africa.
The crew then moved to Amboseli national park to get views of Mount Kilimanjaro.
Kenya provided the perfect background because it was 'beautiful and unusual.' What was usual was the corruption, captured succinctly by Susan d'Arcy, a Paramount Pictures publicist on location with the crew who said it had increased since she had last visited Kenya during the shooting of the movie Gorrillas in the Mist, a movie about anthropologist Diane Fossey. 'Increased' here being the key word. Gorrillas in the Mist was produced in 1988.
If nothing else, Inception will mindfuck you…and you will like it so much you will watch it a few times. At about the fifth time, you'll get the story well enough to narrate it.
The Kenyan coastal city of Mombasa appears as the venue of a foot chase sequence. Two members of the final Inception team are recruited. Cobb is explaining the concept of extraction as an ability to a Japanese gentleman. He wakes up in Mombasa. In the background during the foot chase, you can view a man reading Taifa Leo and a signboard reading Nyoike Limited Kenya.
The sequence was shot in Africa, just not in Mombasa. It was shot in the same place where The Bourne Ultimatum movie was shot, the Old Suok (marketplace) in the city of Tangier in Morocco.
There is an insane but not implausible theory that the creatives behind Inception placed the Mombasa scene as an in joke for the conspiracy crowd. The movie was released in 2010, and was developed during the height of the birther crowd that claimed that Barrack Obama was born in Mombasa and not in the US.
One of the extraordinary gentlemen, Alain Quatermain, played by the venerable Scot Sean Connery (I have a theory, that it was he who first pronounced Sean as Shawn, and it became a thing. No? Well then), is based in Kenya where he has retired from his former life. He is seated in club called Britannia Club. Even the closing scene takes place in Kenya where the group assembles to bury Quatermain. A witchdoctor takes some dirt from the grave after the group leaves, and begins a ritual chant. The freshly covered earth shakes and lightning hits the grave right before the screen goes black and the credits roll.
Although the two scenes are based in Kenya in the story, the movie was shot in the Czech Republic. The Britannia Club was a prop built on farmland just an hour from Prague. The basic set was then enhanced with CGI effects to give it a savannah feel.
The film The Ghost and the Darkness is about the mane-less man-eating lions of the Tsavo, and the man with titanium balls who hunted and mowed them down. It is a fictionalized account, but is mostly based on the book that the badass Lieutenant Colonel John Henry Patterson wrote about his blood chilling hunt of the two murderous lions.
As such, its story is centered in what is now called Man-Eater's Junction, because if you are going to commemorate a tragic series of events, there is no better way but to make it sound like a cannibal cuisine restaurant. The events take place in the area where the bridge was being built, about 300 kilometers southeast of Nairobi.
Only it was all shot at the Songimvelo Game Reserve in South Africa. Many of the Maasai characters are just South African actors in costumes, although there are a few real Maasai warriors. The production team chose SA as a stand-in for Kenya 'due to tax reasons.' Of course they mean the other taxes, not the ones you pay to customs and other relevant government bodies, but to those who hold the offices. Such are the hidden costs of shooting movies in this great country.


text:
2011 Korean Grand Prix
The 2011 Korean Grand Prix, formally the 2011 Formula 1 Korean Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race that was held on 16 October 2011 at the Korea International Circuit in Yeongam, South Jeolla, South Korea.[3] It was the sixteenth round of the 2011 Formula One season, the second running of the Korean Grand Prix, and the first race after Sebastian Vettel claimed the 2011 World Drivers' Championship.
Race 16 of 19 in the 2011 Formula One World Championship
2011 Formula 1 Korean Grand Prix
Yeongam, South Jeolla, South Korea
Korea International Circuit[1]
5.621 km (3.493 mi)
55 laps, 309.155 km (192.100 mi)
Dry, light rain at the start
Air Temp 21 °C (70 °F)[2]
McLaren-Mercedes
Sebastian Vettel Red Bull Racing-Renault
1:39.605 on lap 55 (lap record)[N 1]
Red Bull Racing-Renault
The 55-lap race was won by Vettel, after starting from second on the grid. Lewis Hamilton finished in second place for McLaren, and Mark Webber completed the podium in third position.[4] As a consequence of the race, podium finishes for both Vettel and Webber ensured that Red Bull Racing defended their World Constructors' Championship title, extending their lead to 140 points over McLaren, with only 129 points available at the final three races.
Polesitter Hamilton broke Red Bull's streak of pole positions, which had started at the 2010 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, and continued for another 15 races. Prior to this race, the last time Red Bull failed to take pole was at the 2010 Brazilian Grand Prix, when Nico Hülkenberg, driving for Williams, was the polesitter.
The FIA announced that former Lotus driver, Martin Donnelly, would be the drivers' representative on the stewards panel for the weekend.[5] Formula Renault 3.5 Series runner-up Jean-Éric Vergne drove for Toro Rosso during free practice, after announcing a deal to run in Friday practice in Korea, Abu Dhabi and Brazil.[6]
With Sebastian Vettel clinching the 2011 championship title at the Japanese Grand Prix, four drivers remained in contention for the runner-up position behind Vettel. Jenson Button, the winner in Japan, held an eight-point lead over Fernando Alonso, with Mark Webber a further eight points behind, and Lewis Hamilton another sixteen back in fifth place. Red Bull Racing entered the race weekend with the opportunity of winning the Constructors' Championship for the second consecutive season.[7]
With the World Drivers' Championship settled in Japan, Pirelli promised an "aggressive" tyre selection for the final four races of the season, with motorsport director Paul Hembery predicting four-stop strategies throughout the race.[8]
Tyre supplier Pirelli brought its yellow-banded soft compound tyre as the harder "prime" tyre and the red-banded super-soft compound as the softer "option" compound, as opposed to the previous year where Bridgestone brought the silver-banded hard compound as the prime.[9]
A single DRS (Drag Reduction System) Zone was used in the Korean race. The detection point was located 30m after the first turn, while the DRS activation point was halfway (516m after turn 2) in between turn 2 and 3, down the long straight. Hence, the DRS was used for maximising top speed rather than acceleration.[10]
Following a collision between Jaime Alguersuari and Nico Rosberg during the second free practice session in which Rosberg made contact with Alguersuari as the Toro Rosso driver emerged from the pit lane, a system of warning lights was installed on the approach to the first turn.[11] Following the accident, Ferrari drivers Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa called for the pit exit to be reconfigured in future so as to prevent similar incidents from occurring.[12] Nico Rosberg and Jenson Button almost had a collision coming out of the pit lane. It involved the two cars sharing the pit lane to get out in one piece. Rosberg managed to get out first but was overtaken by Button. Button was then taken over by Rosberg again.
The Grand Prix was the 700th in which the McLaren team competed.[13]
Lewis Hamilton stopped Red Bull's run of 16 consecutive pole positions by setting the fastest time in Saturday's qualifying session. It was his first pole since the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix. Sebastian Vettel was still on the front row of the grid because his final flying lap was not good enough to beat Hamilton's time but still left him in second position. Jenson Button was three tenths slower than teammate Hamilton, but only a tenth slower than Vettel. The second Red Bull of Mark Webber lined up fourth, in front of the two Ferraris, where Felipe Massa had out-qualified Fernando Alonso for the fourth time in six races. Nico Rosberg, Vitaly Petrov and the Force Indias of Paul di Resta and Adrian Sutil completed the top ten, after all making the third part of qualifying. Jaime Alguersuari and Sébastien Buemi did well to qualify an unusually high eleventh and thirteenth for the Toro Rosso team. The Mercedes of Michael Schumacher was only twelfth, in between them. Kamui Kobayashi, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Sergio Pérez were the other drivers who made it into Q2, filling spaces 14 to 17 on the grid in that order. This meant that Rubens Barrichello could not qualify higher than eighteenth. The three new teams completed the back of the grid; Heikki Kovalainen out-qualified Jarno Trulli at Lotus, Timo Glock was faster than Jérôme d'Ambrosio at Virgin and Daniel Ricciardo failed to set a lap time due to electrical problems, but would be allowed start twenty-fourth and behind HRT teammate, Vitantonio Liuzzi.
The race started with contact at the back, between a Sauber and the Toro Rosso of Sébastien Buemi. Vettel positioned his car behind Hamilton to pick up the slipstream from his car, in order to move close enough to make a passing manoeuvre, and passed Hamilton for the lead at Turn 4. In the meantime, Massa had moved up to third position, passing both Webber and Button. Into turn 4, Button tried to pass Massa around the outside of the turn, but both drivers were delayed enough to allow Webber to pass them both, and Alonso further displaced Button through turn 6. At the end of the lap, Liuzzi was forced to pit, to replace a damaged front wing. On lap 14, there was a pit stop battle between Button and Rosberg. They entered the pits, Button ahead, and Rosberg emerged from his box ahead of Button, after a quicker pit stop. When the pair exited the pits, Rosberg braked too late, and Button passed him. Rosberg then deployed his DRS, and would pass Button again, before Button reversed the move the following lap.
On lap 17, there was a crash between Petrov and Schumacher, causing both cars to retire with damage, and the safety car to be deployed. Petrov and Alonso had been battling over track position on the straight, but both missed the braking zone, and Petrov rammed into the back of Schumacher, damaging Schumacher's rear wing. Petrov was later given a five-place grid penalty for the Indian Grand Prix, for causing an avoidable collision. The safety car came in on lap 20, where Vettel extended his lead once again. On lap 27, Rosberg was defending fifth place, from Massa and Alonso, but Rosberg missed his braking point and lost track position to them both. Pastor Maldonado was given a drive-through penalty for entering the pit lane too fast, and later retired due to a clutch problem. On lap 33, the battle for second place between Hamilton and Webber saw both drivers pit, with Hamilton returning to the track ahead. Webber dived up the inside of Hamilton to take second place at Turn 6. Hamilton continued alongside Webber on the run to the next corner, and Webber had to yield, thus handing the place back to Hamilton.
Later in the race Ferrari pitted Massa, but Alonso decided to stay out, consequently leading the race for a few laps. This worked out best for Alonso, because Massa was held up in traffic, and Alonso was not. Later on, after Alonso had pitted, Alonso was closing in on the cars ahead. He caught up with only a few laps to spare, setting a fastest lap on the way. Alonso then came on the radio saying "I give up. I give up." It was later revealed that he meant he had arrived too late, and there was nothing he could do, so he kept fifth. Vettel took his tenth victory of the season, ahead of Hamilton – who took his first podium since the German Grand Prix – and Webber, the latter's result ensuring that Red Bull Racing became 2011 Constructors' World Champion with three races remaining. Button was fourth, and Alonso finished fifth, followed by Massa, Alguersuari, Rosberg, Buemi and di Resta, who completed the points scoring positions.
Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 1:37.525 1:36.526 1:35.820 1
Sebastian Vettel Red Bull Racing-Renault 1:39.093 1:37.285 1:36.042 2
Jenson Button McLaren-Mercedes 1:37.929 1:37.302 1:36.126 3
Mark Webber Red Bull Racing-Renault 1:39.071 1:37.292 1:36.468 4
Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:38.670 1:37.313 1:36.831 5
Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1:38.393 1:37.352 1:36.980 6
Nico Rosberg Mercedes 1:38.426 1:37.892 1:37.754 7
Vitaly Petrov Renault 1:38.378 1:38.186 1:38.124 8
Paul di Resta Force India-Mercedes 1:38.549 1:38.254 no time 9
Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes 1:38.789 1:38.219 no time 10
Jaime Alguersuari Toro Rosso-Ferrari 1:39.392 1:38.315 11
Michael Schumacher Mercedes 1:38.502 1:38.354 12
Sébastien Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari 1:39.352 1:38.508 13
Kamui Kobayashi Sauber-Ferrari 1:39.464 1:38.775 14
Bruno Senna Renault 1:39.316 1:38.791 15
Pastor Maldonado Williams-Cosworth 1:39.436 1:39.189 16
Sergio Pérez Sauber-Ferrari 1:39.097 1:39.443 17
Rubens Barrichello Williams-Cosworth 1:39.538 18
Heikki Kovalainen Lotus-Renault 1:40.522 19
Jarno Trulli Lotus-Renault 1:41.101 20
Timo Glock Virgin-Cosworth 1:42.091 21
Jérôme d'Ambrosio Virgin-Cosworth 1:43.483 22
Vitantonio Liuzzi HRT-Cosworth 1:43.758 23
107% time: 1:44.351
Daniel Ricciardo HRT-Cosworth no time 24
Sebastian Vettel Red Bull Racing-Renault 55 1:38:01.994 2 25
Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 55 +12.019 1 18
Mark Webber Red Bull Racing-Renault 55 +12.477 4 15
Jenson Button McLaren-Mercedes 55 +14.694 3 12
Fernando Alonso Ferrari 55 +15.689 6 10
Felipe Massa Ferrari 55 +25.133 5 8
Jaime Alguersuari Toro Rosso-Ferrari 55 +49.538 11 6
Nico Rosberg Mercedes 55 +54.053 7 4
Sébastien Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari 55 +1:02.762 13 2
Paul di Resta Force India-Mercedes 55 +1:03.602 9 1
Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes 55 +1:11.229 10
Rubens Barrichello Williams-Cosworth 55 +1:33.068 18
Bruno Senna Renault 54 +1 Lap 15
Heikki Kovalainen Lotus-Renault 54 +1 Lap 19
Kamui Kobayashi Sauber-Ferrari 54 +1 Lap 14
Sergio Pérez Sauber-Ferrari 54 +1 Lap 17
Jarno Trulli Lotus-Renault 54 +1 Lap 20
Timo Glock Virgin-Cosworth 54 +1 Lap 21
Daniel Ricciardo HRT-Cosworth 54 +1 Lap 24
Jérôme d'Ambrosio Virgin-Cosworth 54 +1 Lap 22
Vitantonio Liuzzi HRT-Cosworth 52 +3 Laps 23
Pastor Maldonado Williams-Cosworth 30 Clutch 16
Vitaly Petrov Renault 16 Collision damage 8
Michael Schumacher Mercedes 15 Collision 12
Championship standings after the raceEdit
Bold text indicates the World Champions.
Sebastian Vettel 349
Jenson Button 222
Fernando Alonso 212
Mark Webber 209
Lewis Hamilton 196
Source: [16]
Constructors' Championship standings
Red Bull Racing-Renault 558
McLaren-Mercedes 418
Note: Only the top five positions are included for both sets of standings.
FootnotesEdit
^ Although Lewis Hamilton set a lap time of 1:35.820 in qualifying, Sebastian Vettel's time of 1:39.605 is recognised as the lap record as it was set under race conditions.
^ "2010 FIA Formula One World Championship: Circuit and lap information" (PDF). fia.com. Paris: Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. 4 March 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 31, 2010. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
^ "2011 FORMULA 1 KOREAN GRAND PRIX (Race)". Formula1.com. Formula One Group. 16 October 2011. Retrieved 31 March 2012. [dead link]
^ "World Motor Sport Council: 03/11/2010". fia.com. Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. 3 November 2010. Archived from the original on 22 June 2011. Retrieved 21 May 2011.
^ Holt, Sarah (16 October 2011). "Sebastian Vettel wins Korean Grand Prix from Lewis Hamilton". BBC Sport. BBC. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
^ Beer, Matt (12 October 2011). "Martin Donnelly takes on driver steward role for Korean Grand Prix". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
^ Beer, Matt (12 October 2011). "Toro Rosso to run Jean-Eric Vergne in Friday practice at three grands prix". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
^ "Formula One statistics for Korean GP". Yahoo! Eurosport. TF1 Group. Reuters. 12 October 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2011. [dead link]
^ Noble, Jonathan; Beer, Matt (12 October 2011). "Pirelli promises Korean GP tyre choice will give teams a challenge". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
^ "Pirelli announce tyre choices for remaining races". Formula1.com. Formula One Group. 7 October 2011. Archived from the original on February 10, 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2012.
^ Collantine, Keith (13 October 2011). "Short DRS zone for Korean Grand Prix". F1 Fanatic. Keith Collantine. Retrieved 31 March 2012.
^ Noble, Jonathan (14 October 2011). "F1 drivers to be warned with lights about rivals exiting the pits in Korea". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
^ "Korea Friday quotes: Ferrari". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. 14 October 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
^ Henry, Alan (13 October 2011). "700 and counting! McLaren celebrates GP milestone in Korea". McLaren. McLaren Group. Archived from the original on October 15, 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
^ "2011 FORMULA 1 KOREAN GRAND PRIX - Qualifying Results". formula1.com. Archived from the original on 18 December 2014. Retrieved 28 December 2015.
^ "2011 FORMULA 1 KOREAN GRAND PRIX - Race Results". formula1.com. Archived from the original on 3 January 2015. Retrieved 28 December 2015.
^ a b "South Korea 2011 - Championship • STATS F1". www.statsf1.com. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to 2011 Korean Grand Prix.
2011 Japanese Grand Prix FIA Formula One World Championship
2011 Indian Grand Prix
2010 Korean Grand Prix Korean Grand Prix Next race:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Korean_Grand_Prix&oldid=888487482"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


TORONTO, July 2007 – This year at IDEA World Fitness, STOTT PILATES will unveil its newest piece of multi-purpose fitness equipment, the V2 Max Plus Reformer*. Inspired by the demand for a highly versatile piece of equipment, STOTT PILATES, a division of Merrithew Corporation and the world's most respected Pilates company, developed a unit perfect for facilities looking to implement multi-faceted Pilates programming in a limited space.
The new V2 Max Plus Reformer transcends traditional Pilates equipment by offering restriction-free movement and limitless programming possibilities. The unit's innovative vertical frame pulley system emulates the free, multi-dimensional movement of daily life by accommodating three-dimensional range of motion.
The all-in-one equipment system facilitates hundreds of standard reformer exercises, including cardio-based plyometrics, and then converts quickly to utilize the secondary pulleys to add dozens more. In all, it delivers over 450 exercises with programming options for every body and goal from rehab to pro-athletes.
The V2 Max Plus Reformer multi-tasks as a Mat, Reformer and Cadillac. As with all models of STOTT PILATES reformers, the V2 Max Plus offers unparalleled safety, durability and versatility. The V2 Max Plus Reformer will withstand continual use and accommodates a full complement of reformer accessories expanding programming options to keep clients and instructors motivated.


text:
About Afghanistan
Background Profile on Afghanistan
President Profile
Cabinet Structure
Ministers Biography
Biography of Chief Justice
Biography of the Supreme Court Members
Wolesi Jirga Speaker Biography
Meshrano Jirga Speaker Biography
Links of Government Body
Reporters Guidelines
Election Coverage Policy
Poll Guideline
Guidelines On Public Demands and Opinion
Provincial Council Election Coverage guidelines
Media and Elections Guide
Introduction of IEC
Commissioners Biography
Chief Electoral Officer Biography
IECC
Introduction of IECC
IECC Commissioners Biography
IECC Chief Electoral Officer Biography Officer Biography
IECC Chief Electoral Officer Biography
About Poll Process
How to vote?
Poll transparency
Electoral System
Presidential Authorities
Law and Decrees
The Constitution of Afghanistan
Electoral Law
Law on Assemblies, Strikes, and Demonstrations
Political Parties Law
Mass Media Law
List of Nominees
Contender Biographies
Plans, Programmes & Priorities
Debate (Voters and Candidates)
Parliament Candidate
2018 Primary List of Wolesi Jirga Candidates
Marjan, a symbol of courage against Taliban in Uruzgan
By: Abasin Zaheer ,Date: 2013-04-19
KABUL ( PAN ): Marjan, 50, the only female member of the provincial council in central Uruzgan province, says it was her long resistance against the Taliban that translated into her election as member of the council.
Despite numerous challenges and attempts on her life by the Taliban, Marjan was able to be elected as the council member after she attracted the attention of tribal elders who proposed her to run for a provincial council seat.
"It has been my courage and resistance against the Taliban that led tribal elders to purpose me to run in the elections," she told Pajhwok Afghan News in an interview after addressing a gathering of 200 women in Tirinkot, the provincial capital.
Marjan, who belongs to the Kuchi tribe, is in her 50s, but still has strong physiques. She seems to be clever, though illiterate. A resident of Tirinkot, Marjan said she did not expect she would be able to travel outside Uruzgan and work for women's rights and empowerment due to Taliban's threats.
"My brother and a nephew who worked for the government were killed by the Taliban, who continued to threaten my family and I had to spent three months in a cave inside my residence," she recalled.
She added she had to spend her days and nights like a prisoner at her house and had to guard her home because someone could anytime throw hand grenades inside. Finally, she said she had been able to flee while clad in men's dress through a hole dug by her brother in one her house's walls.
In cooperation with her brother and area people, she reached Ajristan district in southern Ghazni province, where she came under attack from the Taliban, but survived. She suffered slight injuries in the ambush. The insurgents fled as security forces arrived at the scene, Marjan said.
Frequent attempts on her life by the rebels attracted tribal elders to insist she should run for a provincial council seat, an offer she accepted.
"Tribal elders told me that women and girls in our province are facing many problems and they are being killed on a daily basis, therefore I should be a member of the provincial council as their representative," she said.
Marjan is the only woman who highlights problems facing women in Uruzgan, where most of girls are deprived of education and have no access to health facilities.
During the course of her duty, she had executed different uplift projects for women's development with assistance from provincial officials.
Although Marjan is not educated, she realises the importance of education among girls and has been actively involved in sharing women's demands with government officials.


text:
Explore more about Samsung The Wall
The Wall All in One is a modular Micro-LED display which is introduced especially for professional spaces
By Asim Siddiqui
Being a leader in innovation, Samsung always being at the top in its multiple product lines. By adding or coming up with something techno advanced features or product. Now recently, the South Korean tech giant has added two new products. This addition is been made in its Pro-Audio-Visual portfolio respectively. These two products are the Wall All-in-One and Flip Pro showcased during the InfoComm 2022 event in India.
Samsung The Wall All-in-One
For the one who is not aware of this premium LED display then Samsung's, The Wall All-in-One is a modular Micro-LED display which is introduced especially for professional spaces. Additionally, it offers two screen sizes which are 110-inch and 146 inches respectively. Both the variants featured Black Seal Technology for enhanced contrast and details. As Samsung says on this- it "Blankets the screen with perfect uniformity."
Whereas the display also featured Ultra Chroma technology for brighter colours and for appealing visuals. The Wall All-in-One has an amazing aspect ratio of 16:9.
Additionally, here the screen can be easily installed and has a pre-adjusted seam and a "Pre-Assembled Frame Kit" for the purpose. Whereas the Wall All-in-One is a single unit. It consists of a built-in control box, wall brackets, speakers and deco bezels respectively.
Samsung Flip Pro
Talking about Samsung Flip Pro then this is specifically for educational purposes and it comes in two size options. The sizes are 75 inches and 85 inches respectively. Being one of the most innovative creations as it supports pen and brush mode. And it enables a real writing experience and enables erasing with a simple swipe of a finger or palm.
Features and connectivity options
Here in this the display include the features like the quick tool, palette menu, and a toggle button for a new note layer UI. Also, it supports multiple connectivity options like 3-in-1 USB C, HDMI, DP, and OPS (Open Pluggable System) slot.
Additionally, the display is equipped with the functionalities like screen mirroring, touch control, and external device charging (maximum 65W).
The price of Samsung's 'The Wall All-in-One' display, which is retails at a starting price of Rs 90,00,000. On the other hand, the Samsung Flip Pro starts at Rs 5,00,000 respectively. While there are no words on these displays' arrival dates.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM GOOGLE NEWS
Tags: LED displayMicro LEDSamsungSamsung DisplaySamsung Flip ProThe Wall All in One
By SN24Team January 29, 2023


USB Cooling Fan : portable,Mini,cool!
Everyone should have a USB Gadget on their desk these days, not only are they great to look at but most of them actually do something useful too! Take the USB fan for example; quirky, fun and actually works. Whilst everyone else in the office is sweating away in what is sure to be the hottest summer for years, you can sit cool, calm and collected in the gentle breeze.
USB Fans come in several guises, you can get USB fans for laptops which have a bendy neck for perfect positioning and desktop fans like your traditional retro office fan.The USB Retro Fan is a mini version of the free standing upright fan, and is sure to make people do a double take as they pass by your desk, and the USB Desktop Fan offers a bit more positioning ability with an adjustable bendy neck.
USB fan is a desktop or notebook computer USB interface of the miniature electric fan.Through the computer USB interface connected to a computer, a flexible bellows can let USB fan blowing in any direction, and is energy saving.The USB port on the computer external equipment can provide voltage is 5 volts, current of 500mA, USB fan is the USB interface to provide power to the small fan, noise is slightly big, do not fit in the quiet office use, wind middle.
USB fan is characterized by the most convenient, plug and play, as long as you insert the USB, immediately can produce cool breeze, no batteries required.USB fan can also be placed on the notebook computer bag belt to any place, USB fan blade is made of soft plastic film production, although the rotational speed is very quick, but is absolutely safe, little noise, wind performance is also good, blowing it up a little fan feeling.USB fan is considered as a good partner for office worker in hot summer because it can send cool breeze for people. Meanwhile, it is easy to carry with and its' cute appearance are so attractive.
Mickey 5.0 MP Multifunctional USB PC Camera Webcam Led Light Cooler Fa..
21st Century Multifunctional Mickey USB Webcam with Fan + Microphone +..
Shenzhen Raline Technology Co., Ltd.
This page is BusyTrade USB Cooling Fan : portable,Mini,cool! detail, Where real-time brings together the latest and most complete wholeslae Home, Home wholesalers, Home wholesale price for global importers and china exporters to provide quality information guide.
You can also browse to the USB Cooling Fan : portable,Mini,cool! related usb electric fan, USB Desk Fan, USB laptop fan, Mini USB Fan, usb light fan, portable fan, wholesale products.


In this paper, which is an extension of , we first show the existence of solutions to a class of Min Sup problems with linked constraints, which satisfy a certain property. Then, we apply our result to a class of weak nonlinear bilevel problems. Furthermore, for such a class of bilevel problems, we give a relationship with appropriate d.c. problems concerning the existence of solutions.
Key words: Min Sup problems / variational convergence / bilevel programming / d.c. programming.


text:
The Case Against "STEM"
How blurring the line between science and technology puts both at risk
M. Anthony Mills
Among the more influential truisms about science today is that it is essential for technological — and thus economic — progress. It is fitting, then, that the apparent slowing of American innovation has fueled a debate about the importance of science and the need for the federal government to support it.
Indeed, there is growing interest across the political spectrum in revitalizing American innovation, raising questions about how best to allocate scarce resources. What kinds of research should we support? Who should decide — government or industry or the scientific community? Should we emphasize science or technology? Should we steer research toward solving practical problems or simply leave science free to pursue its own aims?
When asking these questions, we typically take for granted that scientific research is necessary for innovation. But while it may be a truism today, this contention is in fact a modern one, best known from the writings of Francis Bacon. And it rests on an important claim about — and, too often, a misunderstanding of — the relationship between science and technology.
Bacon was among the first thinkers to argue that scientific knowledge should not be pursued as an end in itself but rather as a means to an end — the improvement of the human condition. Science, in other words, is essentially useful, especially by enabling the technological mastery of nature. Such Baconian rhetoric is so familiar to us today that it likely passes unnoticed. Scientists have long invoked the practical fruits of their trade, especially when seeking public recognition or funding for science. As historian of science Peter Dear wrote in The Intelligibility of Nature (2006):
The authority of science in the modern world rests to a considerable extent upon the idea that science is powerful; that science can do things. Television sets, or nuclear explosions, can act as icons of science because it is taken for granted that they somehow legitimately represent what science really is.
In this way, what Dear calls the "instrumentality" of science "stands for the whole of science." Science, we might say, gets absorbed into technology.
When thinking about the technological fruits that we expect from science, we are now all Baconians. A critical examination of this inheritance, then, may help illuminate today's debates about science, technology, and innovation. As we shall see, Bacon's contention that scientific knowledge is useful — even essential — for technological innovation was ultimately vindicated by history. But the story of how this came to be is more complicated than we typically assume.
Even though science and technology have developed into overlapping and mutually reinforcing fields, they were and remain distinct. The paradox — what I call the Baconian paradox — is that as science becomes more useful for technology (and vice versa), technology tends to overshadow science. As a result, we fail to recognize any meaningful distinction between the two. But this is dangerous for both enterprises. When science is constrained by technological usefulness, scientific knowledge pursued for its own sake falls by the wayside; but besides being intrinsically valuable, this type of knowledge often bears technological fruit.
If we want both science and technology to flourish, we may well need to temper our Baconian rhetoric — to promote science as an end in itself, rather than as a means to technological innovation only — precisely because science has become so useful, just as Bacon predicted.
What Is Science For?
The year 2020 marked the four hundredth anniversary of Francis Bacon's New Organon, in which he sought to reform science by modeling it on the mechanical arts — what today we would call technology. Bacon's 1620 treatise argued that science, like the mechanical arts, should produce "useful works." In contrast to ancient and medieval science, which sought knowledge for its own sake, science — or natural philosophy, as it was then called — should "be judged of by its fruits, and pronounced frivolous if it be barren." Science is not to be pursued for the sake of wisdom, in other words, but — as Bacon famously put it in the The Advancement of Learning — "for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate."
This reformation of knowledge, which Bacon calls the "Great Instauration," would be accomplished with the help of a new kind of logic, a new "organon." Organon, meaning "tool" or "instrument" in ancient Greek, is the name conventionally given to Aristotle's collection of writings on logic. But the difference between the old organon and the new is often misunderstood. One popular misconception is that Bacon proposed induction, reasoning from particulars to universals (say, from observations to natural laws) whereas Aristotle and his medieval followers practiced only deduction, reasoning from universals to particulars (for example, from general concepts to observations of particular instances of those concepts). This mistake is closely related to another canard: that pre-moderns did not make any observations, instead relying entirely on syllogistic reasoning. Bacon himself was under no such illusions: He wanted to replace Aristotle's method of induction with a new and improved one.
The problem with Aristotelian induction, Bacon charges, is that it moves too blithely from sensory observations to universal statements — with these universals then serving as premises in syllogistic arguments. Human reason, Bacon warns, has a natural tendency to fly off into abstraction, and so, unless weighted down by experience, it will fail to extend our knowledge, even while creating the illusion of doing so. Like spiders, says Bacon in a memorable passage, the scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages, following Aristotle, spin intricate webs in the air out of their own thoughts, leaving behind experience and producing only vacuous and irresolvable disputations.
These rationalists, as Bacon called them, are not the only victims of his ire. He also excoriated those who, he believed, relied blindly on empirical experience, such as the practical craftsmen and natural historians of his day. Like ants, they pile up stores from sensory observations without understanding them. This "Empirical school" thus winds up giving "birth to dogmas more deformed and monstrous than the Sophistical or Rational school." This point is often overlooked in cartoonish portrayals of Baconian induction as the mere accumulation of facts. Rather than just relying on plain observation, Bacon "sought … to provide helps for the sense — substitutes to supply its failures, rectifications to correct its errors … by experiments" (emphasis added). Experiments would not only tether the intellect to experience; they would also discipline the senses.
With this mediating role for experiment, Bacon believed that he had "established forever a true and lawful marriage between the empirical and the rational faculty." Unlike the ant that merely collects details (the empirical), and also unlike the spider that spins webs in the air (the rational), the scientist should be like the bee, which "gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and of the field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own."
It's worth spelling out further how this vision of science departs from classical, Aristotelian notions. Contrary to some caricatures, the ancients and medievals did make observations — the slogan "there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses" was an Aristotelian principle revered by the scholastics. Some even performed experiments, notably Archimedes in third-century-b.c. Greece and Roger Bacon in thirteenth-century England. But the prevailing view was that we obtain knowledge of nature by observing things in their natural settings.
Bacon, by contrast, proposed examining "nature under constraint and vexed; that is to say, when by art and the hand of man she is forced out of her natural state, and squeezed and moulded." Nature could be forced to give up her secrets, but only if pressed with instruments and artificial techniques. Possessed with such knowledge, the natural philosopher would gain not disinterested knowledge but power.
In allying knowledge with power, Bacon did not, unlike many of his followers, seek to abolish the distinction between science and technology — between natural philosophy and mechanical art. He certainly wanted natural philosophy to bear fruit and thus to contribute to improving the human condition. But such utilitarian benefits were the result of knowledge gained through the experimental study of nature. As historian of science Paolo Rossi notes, the practical results of science for Bacon were not "artefacts" — particular tools or inventions like the printing press — but rather knowledge of nature's underlying causes. Equipped with such knowledge, natural philosophers would have the power to harness nature for their own purposes; scientific knowledge would enable technological power. In this sense, Bacon declared, "those twin objects, human knowledge and human power, do really meet in one."
Bacon recognized that such knowledge could be of great value to the state. Accordingly, he endeavored (unsuccessfully) to secure political support for his grand proposal for a new science. In his utopian story New Atlantis [from which this journal takes its name –Ed.], he envisioned a large-scale, organized research enterprise, overseen by scientists but supported by public funds and geared toward the betterment of society. It would take over three centuries for something resembling this vision to become reality — perhaps nowhere more clearly than in the American effort to establish scientific and technological preeminence during and after World War II.
Bacon himself made no real scientific contributions, although he did perform some of his own experiments. In one, intended to study the effect of snow on a dead chicken, he reportedly fell ill and died of pneumonia. But while Bacon was primarily a statesman, jurist, and philosopher — rather than a practicing scientist — he is undoubtedly among the most important theorists of modern science, which is why he is often referred to as the "father of modern science."
Scholars continue to debate the extent of Bacon's influence on the actual practice of science in the centuries after his death, for example how well his logic of induction captures the methods of modern science. But there is no dispute that Bacon's understanding of science — especially his proposal that it "be judged of by its fruits" — continues to influence our hopes and fears about the nature of science and its place in society.
The Great Conflation
Bacon's idea that science is about gaining power rather than acquiring wisdom has attracted critics of modernity no less than its cheerleaders. Writing in 1944, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer singled out Bacon as representative of the Enlightenment, which sought to conform everything to "the standard of calculability and utility." In Baconian science, "what human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings." This is not unlike magic, which, although it is "bloody untruth," is similarly "concerned with ends," with domination. Thus did Adorno and Horkheimer unknowingly echo C. S. Lewis, who, only a year earlier in The Abolition of Man, had pointed to Bacon when arguing that "the serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins…. born of the same impulse." The "true object" of Baconian science, as of magic, is "to extend Man's power to the performance of all things possible."
Less dramatic, though no less Baconian, is the popular association of the word "science" with such patently technological enterprises as the building of computers, robots, and advanced weapons, or the manufacturing of medicines. As Peter Dear puts it: "The popular image of a scientist is of someone in a white coat who inventssomething — a vaccine, a satellite, or a bomb." Science, in this sense, is "a form of engineering, whether that engineering be mechanical, genetic, computational, or any other sort of practical intervention in the world." And so we get the prevalent terms that simply lump science and technology together — "science & technology" (S&T), "science and innovation," "research & development" (R&D), or that great linguistic barbarism "science, technology, engineering, and mathematics" (STEM).
All this is more than semantic sloppiness; it affects public policy. Thus we hear proposals to boost federal R&D spending that pay lip service to science but focus almost exclusively on technology — whether "tech hubs" that aim to imitate Silicon Valley or fashionable areas of applied research such as artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, data analytics, and alternative energy technologies. Similarly, politicians and educators promote STEM, with a particular focus on "coding." Or they want to maintain America's competitive advantage in "science and technology," especially by bridging the "STEM talent gap." And during the Covid-19 pandemic, politicians and pundits have routinely characterized the efforts of private corporations to invent a vaccine by talking of a hope that "science" will come to our rescue.
One likely explanation for this ready conflation of science and technology is simply sociological. This talk of "science" unceremoniously bags together epidemiology, virology, and clinical medicine; atmospheric physics, marine biology, and organic chemistry; civil engineering, industrial design, and materials science, to name only a few. Most policymakers have no firsthand acquaintance with the inner workings of these various professions and divergent practices, and so do not recognize them as distinct fields of inquiry. Here we have, perhaps, a contemporary version of C. P. Snow's famous "two cultures," with an important difference: Where the technical illiteracy of humanists fueled dismissive condescension toward the practitioners of science, technology, and industry, the technical illiteracy of our media and political elites often fuels uncritical admiration.
Yet behind this possible sociological explanation lies something more fundamental: Science has indeed become deeply intertwined with technological development; it is even indispensable to it — just as Bacon envisioned four centuries ago. But the story of how this relationship came to be — and what it means for us today — is not the one that Baconian rhetoric, past or present, would have us believe.
The Baconian Story
To tell the story of this relationship between science and technology, it will be helpful first to consider an influential version of it — what I will call the Baconian story. It goes something like this.
In ancient times, knowledge was thought to be sharply distinct from utility, just as natural philosophy was from manual labor. "In Greek thought as a whole," writes historian of technology David E. Nye in Technology Matters, "work with the hands was decidedly inferior to philosophical speculation." This opposition between knowledge and use reflects a pre-modern and pre-scientific view of knowledge, as well as a class structure, dependent on slavery, that associated utility with the "servile arts." As political scientist Donald E. Stokes puts it in Pasteur's Quadrant, "severing inquiry from use was strongly reinforced in Greek civilization by the consignment of the practical arts to people of lesser station — and manual labor increasingly to slaves."
In contrast to the practical arts, ancient science aimed at knowledge for its own sake and was therefore "useless." As such, it was the privilege of the elite, for "only free men," Peter Dear writes, "such as the citizens of the city-state, had the leisure to devote their time to philosophizing, while practical abilities were the province of servants and slaves." The ancient edifice built on these ideas remained in place through the Greco-Roman period and into the Middle Ages.
Cracks began to appear during the Renaissance, and the structure would crumble under the weight of the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Francis Bacon had introduced the idea of a science aimed toward practical use. No longer the privilege of a class that disdains practicality, science, at Bacon's direction, was pressed into service for utilitarian ends. At the same time, those very ends came to be of growing interest to the upper classes.
The story culminates in the Industrial Revolution. In an influential work on that period, English economic historian T. S. Ashton credited modern science with the technological innovations that drove industrialization in England. More recently — and more plausibly, if not entirely convincingly — another economic historian, Joel Mokyr, credits Bacon for promoting an experimental culture of "useful knowledge" that was conducive to innovation. Science, through innovation, thus becomes the engine of economic growth.
At this stage the ancient divide between knowledge and use collapsed, and so too did the pre-modern class structure on which it depended. Rather than a privilege made possible by the labor of others, science, through technology, becomes the creator of wealth. If natural philosophy is thereby brought down from the lofty pedestal upon which the Greeks had placed it, technology now comes to occupy a privileged place as the foundation of economic progress.
According to the Baconian story, these historical changes mean that any hard and fast distinction between science and technology is archaic, resting on an outmoded and elitist opposition between knowledge and use. It is now misleading, perhaps even meaningless, to speak of "science" versus "technology," of "discovery" versus "invention," of "basic" research versus "applied" research or "development." Some versions of the story, following Bruno Latour, do away with the distinction altogether: there is only technoscience. What we have is more or less useful knowledge, offering us increasingly effective techniques with which to manipulate nature.
We see the main thrust of this story implicit in some of the most influential critiques of modern science and technology. Consider Martin Heidegger's famous 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology," where he describes how modern technology transforms nature into a "standing-reserve" to be exploited. The development of this technological framework was made possible by "the rise of modern physics as an exact science." Note that Heidegger does not simply lump the scientific and industrial revolutions together, as in the crudest version of the Baconian story. On the contrary, he points out that "mathematical science arose almost two centuries before [modern] technology." "How, then," he asks, could modern science "have already been … placed in [technology's] service?" His answer: Modern mathematical science presents nature to us as a "calculable coherence of forces" and a "storehouse of the standing energy reserve." In so doing, science "prepares the way" — like a "herald" — for modern technological exploitation.
Similarly, Herbert Marcuse — an early student of Heidegger associated with Marxism and the Frankfurt School — writes in One-Dimensional Man that "the principles of modern science were a priori structured in such a way that they could serve as conceptual instruments for a universe of self-propelling, productive control." His point is not that science when applied technologically leads to domination, but rather that "science, by virtue of its own method and concepts, has projected and promoted a universe in which the domination of nature has remained linked to the domination of man."
Today, our own techno-pessimists follow Heidegger and Marcuse in blaming modern science for the technological exploitation of nature and humanity. We can also hear echoes of the Baconian story in the prognostications of those techno-optimists who, at their most unrestrained, hope for a posthuman future in which science and technology have allowed us to transcend all limits imposed by nature.
Both modernity's champions and its judges accept the moral of the Baconian story: that the essence of modern science lies in its technological power.
Liberal vs. Servile Arts
However influential, this Baconian story is wrong in several crucial respects.
Start with the opposition between knowledge and use allegedly promoted by the ancients and medievals. It is true that Plato and Aristotle distinguished between science (episteme) and technology or craft (techne) as well as between theory (theoria) and practice (praxis). And they certainly promoted the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. But Plato also criticized the pre-Socratic natural philosophers for reducing philosophy to the mere study of nature. The Socratic innovation was to orient philosophy toward something much less theoretical and more practical: the moral and political question of how to lead a flourishing life. Aristotle followed his teacher in this respect, taking practical wisdom to be the highest virtue, and devoted considerable attention to the practical sciences of ethics, politics, and rhetoric.
As for the Greek words episteme and techne, these do not track well our own distinction between "science" and "technology." Any comparison between ancient and modern ideas on these subjects is more complicated than the Baconian story suggests.
Plato often uses episteme and techne interchangeably, and even thinks of techne as a paradigmatic form of rational knowledge. In the dialogue Ion, for instance, Socrates concludes that his interlocutor, who is a kind of poetic performer, does not possess a techne because he is unable to explain the nature of his craft. Tellingly, Socrates contrasts Ion's lack of "art and knowledge" not with the philosopher or scientist but with the carpenter, the charioteer, the fisherman, as well as the doctor and the arithmetician.
In some places, Aristotle appears to draw a sharper distinction between episteme and techne. But, as Alasdair MacIntyre points out, Aristotle in his Metaphysics also takes the master-craftsman to be "the model of the person with sophia," or wisdom. (Among other things, the master-craftsman knows what is the right thing to do in the right situation.) And, far from seeing episteme and techne as mutually exclusive, in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle characterizes the pursuit of wisdom as a science that is a master-craft. Thus while Aristotle, like Plato, takes the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake to be nobler than any other pursuit, that is because the object of this particular craft is wisdom — and wisdom is the precondition for human flourishing.
Similarly, Aristotle believed the theoretical sciences were "higher" than the practical sciences. But this ranking is based on what these sciencesstudy, not on whether they are practical or require the use of one's hands. As he put it in On the Soul, a science can be said to be "more honourable and precious than another" either because of its "greater exactness" or because of the "higher dignity and greater wonderfulness" of its "objects." This is why physics and mathematics are higher than practical sciences like politics, which are less exact; but metaphysics is higher still, because it studies not particular beings like plants and stars, but being as such.
Our modern distinctions between knowledge and use, or between science and technology, simply fail to capture these intricate webs of meaning.
There is no question that both Plato and Aristotle had disparaging things to say about those who had to work for a living. Aristotle writes that shepherds are the "laziest" of all men, and infamously argued that slavery was not contrary to nature. But we should not interpret such claims, morally repugnant and factually unfounded though they are, through the lens of our own notions about knowledge and use.
Aristotle does not denigrate the use of one's hands so much as the condition of people who must concern themselves with survival — with the "servile arts," such as cooking, blacksmithing, or shepherding. By contrast, he writes in Politics, "those who are in a position which places them above toil," which is to say, those who have slaves to attend to the necessities of life for them, "occupy themselves with philosophy or with politics." What makes the servile arts inferior is that they are directed entirely toward instrumental goods rather than being ends in themselves. Thus Aristotle also says — perhaps counterintuitively for us moderns — that the inventors of those "arts" directed to "recreation" are "naturally always regarded as wiser" than the inventors of arts "directed to the necessities of life."
The Middle Ages inherited many of these ancient ideas — and in this era too, the relationship between knowledge and use is more complicated than the Baconian story suggests. For instance, the curricula of medieval universities were structured around the seven "liberal arts": the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). All seven were considered crafts — artes in Latin, which is just a translation of the Greek techne. To be sure, these liberal arts were separate from the servile arts, but not because the servile arts were associated with practicality so much as with professional vocation. The liberal arts, by contrast, were those crafts that could be practiced only by those who were free of the need to pursue such vocations. (Modern universities have enshrined this conception in the separation of colleges of liberal arts from those of engineering and other professions.)
Notably, while the medievals retained the classical concept of servility, the society in which they lived was not dependent on slavery in the same way as ancient Greece and Rome. Medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas agreed with Plato and Aristotle that a life devoted to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake was a privilege, in the sense that it required wealth, time, and leisure — a point that is no less true today. But at the height of the Middle Ages, the socioeconomic system that afforded a small minority of men the freedom to devote themselves to such study was one in which slavery had been greatly reduced, and at least in England all but abolished. Though the agrarian society of the Middle Ages depended on a feudal hierarchy, many peasants were not serfs, but had rights (if often limited) to property, tools, and the surplus of what they produced for their lords. And skilled artisans — masons, weavers, blacksmiths — formed a growing middle class bound together in craft guilds that both transmitted artisans' skills and protected their economic interests.
The contrast in the socio-economic standing between ancient and medieval craftsmen may be brought out by an infamous line from Aristotle's Politics: "If … the shuttle would weave … without a hand to guide [it], chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." At first glance, this appears to be a prophetic statement about automation and emancipation. It is all the more striking when one considers that the nineteenth-century Luddites — who violently protested automation by smashing the machines that threatened their way of life — were weavers. And yet, the Luddites were not servants or slaves, but rather skilled artisans who were members of a craft guild — a medieval institution that had flourished up through the Renaissance and until the Industrial Revolution. Aristotle could more readily imagine the automation of mechanical art than he could a society organized in such a way that its artisans were not slaves. But it was precisely such a society that confronted — and, as we shall see, may have even helped to facilitate — the era of industrialization.
Technology's Breath of Life
The Baconian story oversimplifies the ancient and medieval conception of science to the point of falsehood. But there is no question that the new science marked a significant departure from classical and medieval natural philosophy, nor that science and technology became increasingly intertwined. We should not overlook Bacon's role in these historical changes. The Baconian story should be taken seriously — but not therefore literally.
Really, it should not even be taken literally as an interpretation of Bacon. He believed that science needed to reform itself precisely to become more like the mechanical arts, which were "continually thriving and growing, as having in them a breath of life." In other words, Bacon recognized that progress in technology had been taking place quite independently of science.
Indeed, many of history's impressive technological achievements — the water wheel, the mechanical clock, the mariner's compass, eyeglasses, gunpowder and many others — long predated modern science. Thanks to figures such as Archimedes and Hero of Alexandria, the Hellenistic period could boast inventions such as the water screw, the early steam engine, and all manner of mechanical devices and weaponry. The Romans, who did little to advance science, made numerous technological improvements — for example in plumbing, construction (notably cement), and hydropower.
Similarly, the Middle Ages, despite today's prejudices, were not a dark age for innovation. "In technology, at least," writes historian Lynn Townsend White, "the Dark Ages mark a steady and uninterrupted advance over the Roman period." What is known as the Renaissance of the twelfth century — that is, not the more familiar, later Renaissance — saw countless technical improvements, including in windmills, manufacturing, and architecture. White enthuses:
The chief glory of the later Middle Ages was not its cathedrals or its epics or its scholasticism: it was the building for the first time in history of a complex civilization which rested not on the backs of sweating slaves or coolies but primarily on non-human power.
The historian Jean Gimpel has gone so far as to refer to an "Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages."
And finally, there is the Renaissance of the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries, which pre-dated the Scientific Revolution but saw unprecedented levels of innovation in fine and mechanical arts, with Leonardo da Vinci as perhaps the best-known exemplar. It is likely no coincidence that it was immediately following this period that Bacon set out to reform natural philosophy.
Of course, technology later came to rely on scientific knowledge to a degree unimaginable to ancient, medieval, or Renaissance inventors. And science, in turn, came to rely on experiments and technology — science became instrumental — just as Bacon envisioned. But for most of history, technology advanced quite independently of science — a dynamic that remained true even during that most significant of technological transformations, the Industrial Revolution.
Plain Englishmen Without Science
The Industrial Revolution marks the most fundamental transformation of human life in the history of the world recorded in written documents," wrote the historian Eric Hobsbawm. Whether or not one entirely agrees with this, one can hardly deny that the Industrial Revolution, even if measured only in terms of the quality and quantity of inventions, brooks no comparison. But was this momentous transformation due to modern science?
Historians remain divided on this vexed question of causality. But one thing is clear: With a few notable exceptions, most inventions of the Industrial Revolution required little, if any, formal knowledge of the cutting-edge science of the day. And most of the inventors were not educated scientists but skilled artisans and craftsmen. As Hobsbawm puts it, for the most part the technology of the Industrial Revolution "required little scientific knowledge or technical skill beyond the scope of a practical mechanic of the early eighteenth century."
This is hardly to denigrate their achievements, nor to suggest that inventors were working haphazardly, but rather to point to two interrelated historical realities. First, most of the inventions associated with industrialization (at least in its initial phase) were not applications of scientific theory. The flying shuttle, the spinning jenny, the spinning mule, the puddling furnace — these did not require, and did not stem from, any deep knowledge of Copernican astronomy, Newtonian mechanics or optics, or even the chemistry of Boyle or Lavoisier. Whatever role scientific knowledge played, it did not directly drive industrialization. In fact, perhaps the most iconic invention of industrialization, the steam engine, is one of the clearest examples of technology driving scientific understanding rather than being driven by it.
The second historical reality worth noting is that the natural sciences and the mechanical arts were at the time professionally and sociologically distinct enterprises. Many of the artisans and craftsmen were of humble birth and lacked the formal education that would have acquainted them with the science of the day. A prime example is Henry Cort, whose puddling and rolling techniques for converting pig iron to wrought iron are among the most important innovations of the Industrial Revolution. Cort was of modest pedigree and education — not much is known about his early life — leading the chemist Joseph Black to describe him as "a plain Englishman without Science."
Most of the inventors of the industrial era were not natural philosophers but engineers, clock makers, miners, and iron masters whose skills were transmitted through apprenticeship rather than university education. The historian Joel Mokyr suggests that this sociological reality may even help explain why industrialization first took hold in Great Britain, for "in an age in which dexterity and experience could still substitute for a formal training in mathematics and physics," the country was "fortunate to possess a class of able and skilled people, larger and more effective than anywhere else." Some historians, such as Jane Humphries, have credited the British guild system for preserving these skills that proved so instrumental to industrialization.
The idea that scientific knowledge bears technological fruit, however central to the self-understanding of modern science, remained at this point more a reflection of Baconian rhetoric than of historical reality.
Classical vs. Baconian Sciences
If the role of science in technological change up until the nineteenth century is often greatly exaggerated, so too is the role of technology in science. Even in the Scientific Revolution, technology did not play as significant a role as is commonly believed.
The modern sciences that first came to maturity during that time were those least dependent on either technology or experiment. Astronomy — arguably the science that inaugurated the Scientific Revolution — was an observational rather than an experimental science, and it still depended on naked-eye observations when Copernicus placed the Sun at the center of the cosmos. Even the physics of Galileo was more mathematical than experimental. The historian of science Alexandre Koyré has argued that Galileo likely did not carry out many of his most famous experiments, using them instead as what we might call thought experiments or rhetorical devices.
This is not to deny any role for instruments in the early days of the Scientific Revolution, especially in making observations — Galileo's telescope and pendulum come to mind — or to deny that experiments were important, for example in Newton's research on optics. But even at their most technological, the scientific advances characteristic of the early Scientific Revolution shared with medieval and ancient science a desire to understand nature — albeit increasingly with the aid of instruments and experiments — rather than to dominate nature or furnish technologies for manipulating it. Put simply, the classical sciences with which the Scientific Revolution began were not especially Baconian.
If any early modern sciences approximated the Baconian ideal, it was not the classical sciences of astronomy and physics, but the experimental traditions that laid the groundwork for the scientific understanding centuries later of such natural phenomena as magnetism, electricity, and the chemical elements. Unlike the classical sciences, these "Baconian sciences," as historian Thomas Kuhn calls them, aimed explicitly at the experimental manipulation of nature. But they grew out of an altogether different set of practices and traditions, with roots in Hermeticism — a school of thought that flourished during the Renaissance.
Hermeticism emphasized the wisdom of ancient esoteric knowledge — especially of alchemy and pharmacology — and the power of occult forces. Perhaps the most prominent Hermetic thinker of the time was the Swiss Theophrastus von Hohenheim, known as Paracelsus, whose philosophy combined Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Christianity, and paganism, and straddled the line between science and magic. Although Bacon was critical of Paracelsus, he was clearly influenced by his tradition. For Baconian science, as for Hermeticism, the ideal practitioner was not the natural philosopher but, as Kuhn puts it, the "Faustian figure of the magus, concerned to manipulate and control nature, often with the aid of ingenious contrivances, instruments, and machines."
Some key figures of the Scientific Revolution were practitioners of both the classical and Baconian traditions. Newton, for instance, was as devoted to alchemy as he was to physics. Yet, the majority of these experimentalists were not natural philosophers but craftsmen and pharmacists. Their research would not be fully integrated into the scientific mainstream until much later, with the rise of modern chemistry and electromagnetism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — helping to forge the bond between science and technology that has become so familiar to us today.
Bacon Vindicated?
The relationship between science and technology underwent a substantial transformation over the course of the nineteenth century. As we have seen, science played no direct role in the Industrial Revolution. But by 1898, William John McGee, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, could proclaim that "scientific progress … is so closely interwoven with industrial and social progress that the advance of one cannot be traced without constant reference to the other." What had changed?
American companies had begun to recognize the economic significance of scientific knowledge in the second half of the nineteenth century, following the lead of the German chemical industry. The Germans had pioneered the concept of industrial research — the first systematic attempt by industry to exploit science for commercial ends. American entrepreneurs soon followed suit. Thomas Edison opened a research laboratory in Menlo Park in 1876. Around the turn of the century, both General Electric and DuPont did the same, and American chemist Arthur D. Little launched an independent commercial laboratory. Academically trained physicists and chemists were in high demand and started to get hired in large numbers by the private sector. For example, Frank B. Jewett, who had received his doctorate in physics at the University of Chicago, oversaw research and development at AT&T and Western Electric, which later became Bell Telephone Laboratories, where he became president.
So intertwined became science and technology that when the Great Depression hit, humanists, religious figures, and ordinary citizens alike were ready to blame science. Science, it was said, not only produced wondrous technologies, like telephony, but also led to automation, unemployment, and rising levels of inequality. As William Wickenden, president of the Case School of Applied Science (now part of Case Western), put it in a 1933 Science magazine article:
John Doe isn't quite so cock-sure as he used to be that all this science is a good thing. This business of getting more bread with less sweat is all right in a way, but when it begins to destroy jobs, to produce more than folks can buy and to make your wife's relatives dependent on you for a living, it is getting a little too thick.
This new attitude was a reaction to the economic crisis but also to the excessive optimism about the social and economic benefits that many believed would come from the application of science to industry. Scientific knowledge had, for better or worse, become indispensable for technological advance — a reality that affected much more than just industry and economics. During World War I, science came to be seen as vital to the public interest for its use in refining the design of machine guns, tanks, hand grenades, submarines, and (infamously) chemical weapons. And World War II finally solidified the Baconian notion that technological advance required sustained federal support for large-scale scientific research — most prominently in the Manhattan Project.
All this is to say that the Baconian story about the technological usefulness of science had finally come to reflect historical fact. So was the distinction between science and technology thereby dissolved? If yes, then the Baconian story would appear to have been wrong mainly in its chronology, not its conclusion. That is, while science and technology remained distinct through the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1750 to 1850), by the beginning of the 1900s they had become a single, uniform enterprise. If this were the case, our public discourse, and our public policies, would be right to conflate the two.
But this would be a hasty conclusion, because science and technology had in fact not become a single, uniform enterprise. Although deeply interdependent and mutually reinforcing, they remained sociologically and institutionally distinct, with divergent professional identities.
'Mirror-Image Twins'
Rather than becoming one enterprise, science and technology underwent parallel transformations during the nineteenth century.
Science became both more professionalized and more specialized. Universities sought to employ scientists from the new specialties as professors, while scientists founded a growing number of professional societies and journals. Around this time, in 1834, William Whewell coined the term "scientist" — a more apt description of the professional scientist than the more classical "natural philosopher" or the patrician "man of science."
At the same time, technology underwent what historian Edwin Layton has termed the "scientific revolution in technology." Just as scientists increasingly relied on technology, so too did engineers increasingly rely on science, and the engineering disciplines began to model themselves on the sciences. As Layton describes:
The artisan was replaced in the vanguard of technological progress by a new breed of scientific practitioner. For the oral traditions passed from master to apprentice, the new technologist substituted a college education, a professional organization, and a technical literature patterned on those of science…. As a result, by the end of the 19th century, technological problems could be treated as scientific ones.
And just as the word "scientist" originated in this period, so too did our current understanding of the word "technology." The term previously referred to the study of practical and mechanical arts. As historian Eric Schatzberg explains, we owe the newer sense of "technology" — referring broadly to industrialization as well as the machinery and outputs of the industrial process — largely to the economist and social theorist Thorstein Veblen, who used it to translate the German Technik in the early 1900s.
The parallel transformations of science and technology and their growing interdependence nevertheless left their institutional and professional separation largely intact. For instance, during the mid-nineteenth century, America's leading colleges and universities began expanding their course offerings in mathematics and the natural sciences. But science and mathematics departments were (and in many respects still remain) institutionally distinct from the more practically oriented engineering departments and technical schools — such as Harvard's Lawrence Scientific School, Yale's Sheffield Scientific School, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the new land-grant universities that tended to focus on such "applied" sciences as agriculture. "The difficulty," writes one scholar, "was finding an educational formula that could join the progress of theoretical science with applications to the practical arts."
The professional self-understandings of scientists and engineers was similarly distinct, even opposed. The leaders of higher education who promoted science — such as Charles William Eliot at Harvard, James McCosh at Princeton, and Noah Porter at Yale — did not do so because of purported practical benefits but rather because science "ennobles and purifies the mind," as Eliot put it. The term "pure science" came into vogue during this same time, to signify purity from what used to be called the "servile arts" — applied sciences, engineering, and industry. The American physicist Henry Rowland, in an 1883 address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled "A Plea for Pure Science," took umbrage at the use of the word "science" to describe "telegraphs, electric lights, and such conveniences."
I do not wish to underrate the value of all these things: the progress of the world depends on them, and he is to be honored who cultivates them successfully. So also the cook who invents a new and palatable dish for the table benefits the world to a certain degree; yet we do not dignify him by the name of a chemist. And yet it is not an uncommon thing, especially in American newspapers, to have the applications of science confounded with pure science.
Rather than fusing together two preexisting enterprises — science and technology — their parallel transformations helped to produce their ambivalent but fruitful relationship. Science and technology had not become a single, uniform enterprise; as Layton writes, they grew up as "mirror-image twins."
The Baconian Paradox
Today, it has become fashionable in policy circles to accept that there is no real distinction between science and technology. Any such distinction is often associated with the much-maligned "linear model" of innovation, according to which scientists conduct their research in a kind of vacuum, disinterested in the use of their findings, while others separately apply their findings to new technologies and products.
Not only does this model fail to capture the complicated relationship between science and technology, its critics argue, it also surreptitiously promotes an elitist distinction between knowledge and use — that ancient prejudice that is now outdated thanks to the triumph of Bacon's ideas. Thus the rejection of the linear model often takes the form of a full embrace of the Baconian story, going so far as to erase altogether the line between science and technology.
For instance, Daniel Stokes, in his influential Pasteur's Quadrant, sets out to criticize the linear model but then goes on to criticize also the continued separation of knowledge and use — of basic and applied science, or of science and technology. Any institutional or professional distinctions of this sort are superficial and outdated, leading to "the perception that basic and applied science are separate ventures."
As we have seen, the linear model that strictly separates science from technology indeed does not hold up; the relationship has always been more complicated. But just because science and technology came to enjoy an intimate and dynamic relationship does not mean that they also became the same enterprise.
Rather, the real distinction between the two enterprises has become harder to discern as science has grown more technologically useful. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in 1971, technologies that are derived from scientific knowledge have become so ubiquitous that they "disguise the still real cleavage between science and technology." And so "they make it difficult to realize how very recent and decisive the emergence of this kind of interaction has been." Now, half a century later, technologies borne of science are even more ubiquitous, and the difference between the two is all but invisible to the public eye.
We might call this the Baconian paradox: The final vindication of Bacon's conception of the utility of science has helped to obscure how long it took for this dynamic relationship between science and technology to come off — and that there nonetheless remains a real and lasting distinction between the two.
Telling the Difference
How can we make sense of this distinction today, given the undeniable overlap between science and technology? The first thing to notice is that the apparent plausibility of the Baconian story is partly due to our rather narrow focus on certain areas of scientific and technological research.
In some fields, such as genetic engineering, the boundary between science and technology is indeed quite murky. But few would describe, say, the building of bridges or the designing of air conditioning systems as science, even though they depend on scientific principles. Similarly, it's hard to imagine anyone mistaking cosmology or entomology for engineering, even though they depend on technology to varying degrees.
The restricted focus on a subset of fields in science and technology may be part of the reason why we find it so easy to run the two together. And this restricted focus likely stems from the prestige that some technological domains have come to enjoy in our time. As David E. Nye points out, beginning in the 1990s the word "technology" came to be synonymous with specific types of inventions, especially computers, phones, and related tools. For many of us, "technology" mainly means smartphones and automated systems — the particular products of one broad industry. Not only is the narrow use of the term strikingly different from the classical concept of techne discussed above, it fails even to capture many other types of technologies we take for granted, from automobiles to vacuum cleaners — technologies that do not (or no longer) seem to us especially scientific in nature.
In fields where the difference between science and technology has become hard to tell — for examples in high-energy physics and quantum computing — we might be helped by distinguishing between the respective aims of science and technology, even if in practice they are tightly linked.
As a rough approximation, we might say that science generally aims at explanation, whereas technology aims at production. A scientific theory is accepted over its rivals because the scientific community deems it a more adequate explanation (however one thinks of this), not because it issues in more useful technologies. Which interpretation of quantum physics should we accept? Is global climate change anthropogenic or not? What is the underlying chemical composition of the stars? By contrast, technologies are deemed successful, at least in part, when engineers are able to produce tools or machines — bridges, HVAC systems, cars, computers, cell phones, nuclear reactors, or whatever — that work. Electric lighting works whether or not we accept the existence of the mechanical ether (as did Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism); automated doors (which utilize the photoelectric effect) function just fine, even though physicists have yet to agree on the proper interpretation of quantum physics.
We can draw a meaningful distinction between science and technology without therefore insisting that they are fully separate: Technology can contribute to scientific knowledge, just as science uses technology to manipulate or produce certain effects. We might think of the two less as separate disciplines than as overlapping but different practices with their own professional and scholarly methods and aims. To be sure, individual scientists and engineers may not always be consciously oriented toward the differing ideals that shape these two enterprises. And exceptional practitioners often participate in and contribute to both at once. But the distinction, as we will see, remains important, even if the relationship is highly interdependent, interactive, symbiotic, and in some places well-nigh invisible.
Endangering Science and Technology
The risk in conflating science and technology is that this endangers both. As President Roosevelt's science advisor, Vannevar Bush, pointed out in his famous 1945 report Science, the Endless Frontier,
Under the pressure for immediate results, and unless deliberate policies are set up to guard against this, applied research invariably drives out pure.
This is problematic because many technological developments depend on advances in so-called basic or pure science. The crowding out of science by technology thus threatens technology by threatening certain areas of science itself.
Bush was not the only thinker to sound this alarm. The German cultural critic Friedrich Jünger, in The Failure of Technology (1946), denounced what he called the "subjugation of science":
As technology progresses, the relation between science and technology undergoes a change. Science becomes the servant of technology…. The disciplines of science become auxiliary disciplines of technology, and they fare the better the more willingly they submit to this role. "Pure science" declines because the important thing is no longer an understanding of the laws of nature, but, first of all, the application, the uses, the exploitation, of those laws.
And in his classic The Technological Society (1954), the French historian and sociologist Jacques Ellul wrote that "in the twentieth century, this relationship between scientific research and technical invention resulted in the enslavement of science to technique."
Less dramatically, we might simply observe that, especially when budgets are tight, funding for research with overtly utilitarian applications tends to beat out science pursued for its own sake, even if that research might eventually bear fruits. The past several decades of federal R&D policy seems to offer proof of this. Thus, federal funding of basic science, though increasing in absolute terms, has declined over the past half-century as a share of non-defense R&D and as a share of GDP. The ratio is even worse when including defense research, which skews heavily toward applied science and product development. Meanwhile, private actors are even less able to and less interested in bearing the uncertain economic returns of basic science. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of private R&D budgets goes toward application. And so, as the share of R&D spending funded by the federal government has dwindled, and industry has begun to fund the lion's share of research, total national spending on applied science has dwarfed basic science.
The irony of the Baconian legacy is that the more fruitful science becomes, the more it loses its own identity: Whenever science is technologically useful, the two enterprises tend to appear as "different functions performed by the same community," as Edwin Layton has put it. But "a fundamental fact is that they constitute different communities, each with its own goals and systems of values." Almost no society in history, Thomas Kuhn declared, "has managed successfully to nurture both at the same time." That the United States has been able to do so — so far, at least — has surely contributed to our scientific, technological, and economic preeminence.
If we wish science to continue to bear fruit for us, we may well need to refrain from judging it entirely by those fruits, and instead defend science for its own sake.
M. Anthony Mills is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy.
M. Anthony Mills, "The Case against 'STEM'," The New Atlantis, Number 63, Winter 2021, pp. 63–84.
Header image by Juan Mabramota via AFP / Getty
The Invention of the War Machine
Science, technology, and the First World War
M. Anthony Mills and Mark P. Mills
The Science Before the War
How the technological feats of World War II grew out of curiosity-driven research
Saving Science
Science isn't self-correcting, it's self-destructing. To save the enterprise, scientists must come out of the lab and into the real world.
Daniel Sarewitz