Manalili, Joshua Miguel D.

August 23, 2018

Bachelor of Science in Economics STS 1 – V2

Science, as we define it, is a systemized knowledge of an object of study. It is all about discovering
and inventing things independently. That is what they taught us-that science is a stand-alone field that
could work without limit of its own, but by the capacity of the human intellect. What the academe did not
tell us is that science was never independent. There is this overlooked field that has always accompanied
science through its entirety, but has not earned enough credit, and has just always been tagged as the fruit
of science. What we did not know was that it existed long before the birth of science.

Science has always been viewed differently by different people. It is why we cannot deny that some
(or even majority) of these views are somehow “distorted”. This distortion made science appear as an
unreachable/untouchable field among some people (Gil-Perez, et al., 2005). These are embedded within
the conventional way of teaching science in our schools and universities, and it affects the transmission of
knowledge and the perception of the world to science. What we don’t know that science is not all about
“body of knowledge”. More than body of knowledge, science is a way of how we think (Carl, 1979). It is
mainly the way of how we understand nature, the universe and its tendencies. Science seeks connections,
it is hungry for the interrelations and interdependence of one thing to another. But how do we “execute”
science? Is it through technology? I think not. Science is about findings and discoveries with the use of
reasoning. With reason, it means through inductive and deductive reasonings. These logics are used in
order to find scientific truths and revelations about nature and the universe we inhabit. Induction is using
logic from a specific experience to general truths, while deductive inferences do the reverse (Robert,
1974). The scientific truths that could be unraveled because of the limits (or laws of nature) that are
always present in the universe. But how could science discover these limits that are present in this
universe? How could science discover the knowledge of patterns and the tendencies?

Science has always been applauded and praised (or even criticized) by everyone because of its
contributions to the world. But should we give credit solely to science? Everything is interdependent to
one another. Science could not function alone. It needs something like a machinery to work. Something
like a microscope to view the cells, like a telescope to view the asteroids or a satellite to transmit these
informations. Science needs technology. Science could not be the science we know today if it wasn’t for
technology. There might be too many distortions on the people’s perspective on science, but it all points
and leads on how the majority are not well immersed to the relationship between science and technology.
This led for the uncredited and unrecognized importance of technology to science become the norm, and
how it negatively affects the way of learning of the youth in the academes, which became unnoticed from
the early ages until today.

Science always gear towards the improvement of understanding. The truths of today could easily be
the lies of tomorrow. That is how fast and complex science works. Science debunks itself, and this
improves our knowledge of the world, the universe even. But science alone cannot function efficiently. It
needs to have its gears. It needs to have technology. The statement “Technology is the application of
science” could be true, but the statement “Application of technology improves science” is always true.
Just like technology, science could surely stand on its own, but with the use of technology, science will be
more efficient and helpful to our knowledge, and that idea is what is lacking in the 4 corners of our
classrooms. We often praise and kneel before science as the field for the greatest and the bravest, without
even considering the fact that it is somehow inefficient without technology. This notion weakens what
could have been great learning of the youths. It has become the norm in every schools, and this gradually
strips off the hope to change the perspective of the relationship of science and technology. Stripping off
the understanding to this relationship, is also stripping off the improvement of science education in the
academe.

Amidst the wrong notion between the relationship of science and technology, how can we improve
the science education within schools? I think it should start with the people who are well informed about
how technology is the “machine” that makes science more efficient. Let it propagate, let others be
informed. Because we can’t live in a society where majority of the people are misinformed about
something so important. This knowledge could path ways to even greater discoveries if it was just
disseminated to our learning facilities earlier, because these classrooms hold the future scientists of the
society. If the correct notion was embedded into their minds earlier, I wonder how much more would the
world benefit from their knowledge. If everyone was just informed that technology is the backbone of
science, we could have been few steps ahead from where we are today.

Education has always been one of the main priorities of many countries. We are investing a huge
chunk of the people’s budget in education in order to safeguard the good future of the children of our
society. Having that said, we should first question ourselves if the education we are investing in is the
education that would give us the outcome that we expect. We should also question ourselves if we are
giving the youth the education that they deserve, or are we simply giving them the conventional one
without considering its efficiency? We should take a second look especially on the science education of
the youth. With the under-valuation of technology, we should give attention what the citizen may lose
because of this (Gil-Perez et al. 2005). This means that the science education that the people received and
is continually receiving are distorted and could be considered second-class because again, it is the version
of science that does not value the role of technology in it.

In an age where technological advancement dominates the world, I can say that it could either
improve or impede our lives. Improvement has always been the mission of technology. This mission
should be put into good use. There is a vast universe out there waiting to be discovered. Even though it is
vague, vast, or even beyond the capacities of human intellect, I believe that with the proper guidance and
use of our modern-day technology, one could efficiently identify its laws and limits that could contribute
greatly to our understanding. We should always choose the path where technological advancement brings
us to the improvement of our understanding of Science, for these understandings could lead us to
breakthroughs to the main mission of the interaction of science and technology. The mission to enhance
life and grasp the unknown.

Bibliography
Carl, S. (1979). Can We Know The Universe?:REflection on a Gran of Salt;. Broca's Brain, 13-18.
Gil-Perez, D., Vilches, A., Fernandez, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdes, P., & Salinas, J. (2005).
Technology as 'Applied Science': A Serious Misconception that Reinforces Distorted and
Impoverished Views of Science. Science & Education, 309-320.
Robert, P. (1974). On Scientific Method. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.