Talk:Technology/Archive 1

message: Steven, what is this redlinked term 1001 technologies supposed to refer to?  For right now, this should be explained (at least, very briefly) in the text of the article rather than redlinked. --arkuat (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1001 technologies

message: I have two definitions that might be worth some consideration;
1) The application of knowledge and/or resources to solve a problem.
eg
 a) The application of dockleaf to ease the pain of stinging nettle
 b) The use a stone or antler to break flint or open a nut
 c) Using an axe to cut down a tree or fire to make a dugout canoe.
All are resources requiring knowledge and skill to apply them.
On the other hand you could choose to regard knowledge along with raw materials, skills, processes and tools etc collectively as resources. In this case it could just be simplified to;
1b) The application of resources to solve a problem.
Moving on . . .
If the little green guys should decide to turn up in the near future it would probably be safe to conclude that their 'technology' is superior to ours and when we make that judgement we would be refering to their Science, Maths & Engineering ie their level of knowledge (Science & Math) and their ability to apply it(Engineering).
This leads to the following defintion;
2) ~ can also be used as an encompasing term to describe the level of achievement in science, mathematics and engineering of a group or culture.
Comments . . .
Note that so far there is no mention of "Human", humanity has nothing to do with it - many animals have been seen to use tools and resources to solve problems, and don't forget the little green guys . . .
There are a number of sentences in the article that appear to draw conclusions which could be debated. For example;
I believe the McGinn definition ~ 'a human "culture-forming" activity' is either wrong (implies the wrong conclusion) or is taken out of context &/or incomplete. 
Technology is only one factor affecting culture (note that I didn't say human culture) others for example being; environment, population, population density, demographics, race, other cultures etc, all serving collectively to 'influence' culture. 
If anything these same factors along with a certain amount of 'bootstrap effect' would influence the technology so that there is probably in fact a reciprocal effect.
For these reasons I would be very leery of describing technology as "culture-forming".
Also the sentence 'Humans always used tools to feed and protect themselves' Did they? supporting evidence or example? 
The further back you go the less evidence there is to draw conclusions from. All we can really do perhaps is to combine the evidence we do have with observations of contemporary animal behaviour and draw inferences.
In the History of Technology section I think Fire should have its own Heading. 
After basic tools like rocks and sticks, the use and then mastery of fire is a key turning point in technological evolution. Moreover many of the subsequent key turning points in the history and evolution of technology are marked by new levels of mastery over fire. 
Initially fire would have been used for Warmth, Protection & Cooking and then the Shaping & Hardening of Wood, followed by making Clay products, Cements and Metals (Copper, Bronze, Iron). The discovery and development of new Fuels (Charcoal, Coal, Coke, Hydrocarbons and Nuclear), and Engines (Steam, IC, Jet, Rockets) along with the effect of war also often marked points where the development of new technologies accelerated. 
Fire in all it forms is still one of the priciple tools that we use to shape and manipulate the world around us.
I would like to suggest a revision to the History of Technology section as follows;
2.1 Animal, Vegetable, Mineral
   2.1.1 Raw Materials
   2.1.1 Primitive Tools
2.2 Fire
   2.2.1 Wood
   2.2.2 Clay - Bricks, Pottery
   2.2.3 Cements - Mortar, Concrete
   2.2.4 Metals
2.3 Fuels
   2.3.1 Wood, Charcoal
   2.3.2 Coal, Coke
   2.3.3 Hydrocarbons
   2.3.4 Nuclear
2.4 Engines
   2.4.1 Mills (Water and Wind)
   2.4.2 Steam 
   2.4.3 Internal Combustion
   2.4.4 Rockets and Jets
2.5 Accellerants
   2.5.1 Communications
   2.5.2 Population & Population Density
   2.5.3 War
Conclusion . . .
I hope this helps some and doesn't offend anyone or come across too pompous - I'm a bit leery of editing the main page directly without some kind of feedback/discussion/agreement as this seems to cause ructions on occasion, besides I'm still getting my head around the editor.
Ross Filippi 230805
Ross, no offense taken on the comments offered, in fact, just the opposite, good job.  Here are some responses:
:Re: Definition of technology: I do not believe that one single definition of technology is necessary, nevertheless your definition seems appropriate for that purpose.  But, I would not be in favor of eliminating the other definitions.
:Re: Definition and "human": I like the definition, but my feeling about leaving "human" out of the defintions is not that strong.  I am not sure about animals' use of technology being comparable to humans' use.  And, with no evidence of extraterrestial life, that discussion goes no where with me.  Still, I really have no strong feeling about leaving "human" out of the definition.  So go for it.
:Re:Definition and "culture":  Not sure that I understand these comments; but, let's see if I do:  Yes, many things are part of culture formation, including those mentioned, still they are culture forming, so why not attach that description to them?  The reciprocal effects not withstanding, technology does influence culture, so why not state that?  If needed, the relationship among technology, culture, and other elements of the world could be included.  
:Re: Evidence of early uses of technology: The only reference about the earliest uses of technology, even from the experts, would be purely speculative as the one given in the article.  However, those references would be expert anthropologists' speculations, not some amateur (me), so would that suffice? 
:Re: History of technology: Looks good to me.
Input is appreciated!
-Steven McCrary 01:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Steve, Thanks & a couple of clarifications . . .
I wasn't suggesting a single definition of technology I was putting Both up for consideration - I am quite comfortable with multiple definitions . . .
Yea I knew the "extraterrestrial" and "animal" examples were both problematic but am concerned that the page seems a bit human-centric.
Still when you see a chimp first prepare a stick, then use it to extract honey from a tree hollow, or a baboon washing food in the sea prior to eating, or a sea otter using two separate stones as a hammer & anvil (the anvil resting on its belly) to open a sea urchin - well it makes you wonder - is it just the beginning for them? . . . Yes I am speculating but watching that chimp make the stick to just the right size . . .
Perhaps I'm being a bit pernickity about the "culture forming" phrase. You seem to have a broader interpretation of the sentence, whereas when I read it it came across to me as meaning the primary activity that shaped human culture - exclusive of the other factors I referred to above (hence my wondering if it was possibly out of context). 
The thing is, I'm conscious that the page needs to stay reasonably brief rather than heading into thesis or book territory while covering the basics and wherever possible leaving out any conclusions, speculation or bias (hence my concern about 'human').
Having said that, I'm also conscious that my own suggestions may be a bit thesis-ish and could enlarge the page overmuch (note that I've modified them again - slightly). It has occurred to me that a single paragraph be written for each of the suggested sections (eg Fire) with each term highlighted and linked to its own page if available as it arises in the wording of the paragraph. This would keep it brief but cover the ground.
Ross 280805
::I concur.  I also modified the definitions some.  Steven McCrary 22:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yea saw that - cool 
Did a quick RFI last night and have begun to add the stuff I suggested previously - This has necessitated some re-disorganising of some passages, additions to others etc to ensure the flow and content are consistent.
Wanted to do each section / sub-section as a paragraph as suggested above but hasn't worked out very well - so have kept them separate for the moment and added section stubs to allow for/invite other contributions - it can allways be trimmed up later . . . probably broke some formatting rules, sigh 
Have also added some links. Have noticed in the process of doing this that there are some inconsistencies between subjects.
Have not yet added the accellerants section - need to check some data.
Gotta stop now - it's luvely and sunny outside . . . .
Rossfi 14:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions & Comments