How should we reestablish of relations between science and technology to make wider room for philosophy? — Pacem

If it were required, by conceptual analysis, to wit:

1) Science: empirical investigation which provides a reliable explanation.
2) Technology: applied science production.
3) Philosophy: logical investigation which provides a coherent concept and/or model.

Is that enough? It seems a kind of "explaining away". Because conceptual analysis does not change "major" way of thinking. Maybe there is another dimension must be scrutinized; I mean, sociological.

It seems a kind of "explaining away". — Pacem

Correct.

Look for humor another place and don't water topic down, please.

Science is a tool, technology is what we use that tool for, philosophy is the thinking that guides them along the path.

How should we reestablish of relations between science and technology to make wider room for philosophy? — Pacem

We’re all here biased toward favoring philosophical thought. Most people today think that philosophy lacks any practical value. Kind’a like a lyric I once heard: “If it don’t make money it don’t make sense”.

That said, to address the OP, it’s noteworthy that - while accordant to empirical evidence - neither Newton’s (or Einstein’s) nor Lamarck’s (or Darwin’s) publications regarding the natural world concerned direct, first-hand scientific investigations conducted through the scientific method. Both of the OP’s stated works, instead, addressed philosophical perspectives that intended to best account for the given empirical evidence regarding the natural world. In the sciences, at least, one does this by combining parsimony of explanations with maximal explanatory power for the empirical data in question.

What’s missing today is the understanding that the empirical sciences (including the scientific method as procedure, which can be minimally traced back to the philosophy of Bacon) are themselves the outcome of philosophical thought.

It could be argued that there’s a structure to the themes of the OP: philosophy in general --> philosophy applied to the natural world --> the empirical sciences as a body of procedures and paradigms emerging from philosophies applied to the natural world --> technology as the application of some of the conclusions resulting from the empirical sciences.

So, while we’re here biased in favor of philosophy, there’s nevertheless a philosophical foundation to both the empirical sciences and to the resulting technology that most people, imo, are not very familiar with.

edit: haven't read much of Newton's work; so I may be wrong about lack of first-hand experiments addressed in it; still, his theories of gravity and of space are philosophical theories - and not outcomes of particular experiments that abide by the scientific method

Science and technology are separate. Technology predates homo sapiens. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. Science is about coming up with testable theories to explain phenomena. Technology is about tool making. Tool making can happen without any scientific input. Our modern world heavily relies on science to make better tools, but most of our history wasn't like that.

There have been some attempts on here and the previous forum to conflate the science and technology. The agenda was a defense of extreme forms of anti-realism.

Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk

Empirical investigation may consist of simple observation (e.g., flint can be chiselled to provide a cutting edge), or more complex observation (e.g., the results of experiments which test the hypothesis: flint is a hard, sedimentary cryptocrystalline form of the mineral quartz).

If Science is empirical investigation, and the psychological process of observation is its method, then when in human history have human beings been without Science? Never.

Someone asks me, "Is there a house across the road?" (problem definition).
I look out the window (observation), and see a house across the road (fact established).
I answer, "yes" (condition explained).
That's Science.

look out the window (observation), and see a house across the road (fact established).
I answer, "yes" (condition explained).
That's Science. — Galuchat

No, unless you want to redefine the word "Science" to mean perception.

No, unless you want to redefine the word "Science" to mean perception. — Marchesk

I provided a definition for "Science" in my first post to this thread.
Feel free to provide a different one for consideration.

Science is the process of building a predictive model of reality via the science method.

Technology is merely our tools, like rocks hammers and fire.

"Philosophy", however, has too shapes to be so concisely defined.

The scientific method has several roots, it does not come from just one place. It has roots going back thousands of years in philosophy, religion, war, etc. . . It is a question people have written books on and even experts tell different stories. I have my doubts any of you actually has a real clue what you are talking about when it comes to the origin of science.

I have my doubts any of you actually has a real clue what you are talking about when it comes to the origin of science. — Jeremiah

I wasn't referring to the origins of science, only the actual discipline that exists now. I agree with your definition:

"Science is the process of building a predictive model of reality via the science method."

I threw you in that mix for this subjective comment:

. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk

provided a definition for "Science" in my first post to this thread.
Feel free to provide a different one for consideration. — Galuchat

1) Science: empirical investigation which provides a reliable explanation.

That doesn't go far enough. Empirical investigation is only part of it. You need the method for rigorous testing that seeks to get past our biases and frailties. And you need the theoretical part that investigations are fit into.

. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk

I threw you in that mix for this subjective comment.
. Science as a discipline is relatively recent.
— Marchesk — Jeremiah

It's not subjective, it's historically accurate for a reasonable definition of "relatively recent", like as in several centuries.

Please, it is completely subjective.

Does the origin of the scientific method go back "thousands of years" (Jeremiah), or "several centuries" (Marchesk)?

Please, it is completely subjective. — Jeremiah

It's only completely subjective taken out of context. I assume most people realize the scientific revolution happened several centuries ago. So let's go with 1543 AD.

Does the origin of the scientific method go back "thousands of years" (Jeremiah), or "several centuries" (Marchesk)? — Galuchat

The origin, or the accepted practice? I have modern science in mind which is a community built around the scientific method and naturalistic explanations based on the results of various experiments and research performed over time.

When we say "Science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000", we mean the what the scientific community says based on centuries long results of scientific research and building up of explanations. That's fundamentally different than what was done in the past. Our society is scientific in a way no previous civilizations were.

For the OP, notice how, ""Science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000.", has nothing whatsoever to do with technology (as a statement).

Contrast with: "The Iphone X will usher in a new age of augmented and virtual reality, thanks to Apple's redesign of the processors, screen and sensors."

I am not sure you understand what subjective means.

Anyone here have an objective measurements to measure the origin of science?

No, unless you want to redefine the word "Science" to mean perception. — Marchesk

Science, as the word is commonly used, implies these things: first, the gathering of knowledge through observation; second, the classification of such knowledge, and through this classification, the elaboration of general ideas or principles. In the familiar definition of Herbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.

Any time we use technology based on a certain scientific theory, we are testing the theory, which is itself a scientific act. If everyone in your social group is using sticks to draw out termites from a mound, then isn't that testing the scientific observation and the subsequent conclusion that termites attach themselves to sticks when stuck into their mound?

For the OP, notice how, ""Science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000.", has nothing whatsoever to do with technology (as a statement). — Marchesk

Of course it does. How can you make such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? And how can you test such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)?

Of course it does. How can you make such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? And how can you test such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? — Harry Hindu

The claim is a statement of fact about the world, not technology. That's the point. Science isn't about making the next great smartphone. It's about explaining the world. Obviously, science makes heavy use of technology, and vice versa.

But the two aren't the same and it's a mistake to conflate them.

Any time we use technology based on a certain scientific theory, we are testing the theory, which is itself a scientific act. If everyone in your social group is using sticks to draw out termites from a mound, then isn't that testing the scientific observation and the subsequent conclusion that termites attach themselves to sticks when stuck into their mound? — Harry Hindu

What is the scientific theory that chimpanzees are testing when using sticks to draw termites out of termite mounds?

Or what would our ancestors have been testing? That the ancestral spirit has gifted them with termites to eat? That the goddess causes termites to stick because of the sacrifice last full moon?

The claim is a statement of fact about the world, not technology. That's the point. Science isn't about making the next great smartphone. It's about explaining the world. Obviously, science makes heavy use of technology, and vice versa.

But the two aren't the same and it's a mistake to conflate them. — Marchesk

If science is only about explaining the world, then you'd be right. But you've also said in this thread that you are referring to the modern history of science which started with the application of the scientific method, which includes testing theories. Using technology is testing the theory it is based on, and therefore a scientific act.

So, either science started way back when we started explaining the world (any explanation would do, even one that invokes a God and the supernatural), or science started with the advent of the scientific method which includes the testing of theories by others, which includes the use of technology.

What is the scientific theory that chimpanzees are testing when using sticks to draw termites out of termite mounds?

Or what would our ancestors have been testing? That the ancestral spirit has gifted them with termites to eat? That the goddess causes termites to stick because of the sacrifice last full moon? — Marchesk

The theory being tested is that when a stick is inserted into a termite mound and removed, termites will be on the stick. Now let's test the theory by inserting sticks in to termite mounds and removing them. Every time you do that you are testing that theory.

I have modern science in mind which is a community built around the scientific method and naturalistic explanations based on the results of various experiments and research performed over time. — Marchesk

So, Aristotle's zoological observations were philosophy, not science? And Zhang Heng (78-139), Zhang Zhongjing (150-219), Aryabhatta (476-550), al-Haytham (965-1040), al-Biruni (973-1048), and Avicenna (980-1037) were also not scientists (among others)?