tech was necessary, but to call it “responsible” is to think of it as a more autonomous process than it is. And Bill is right, science has usually gained more from tech than vice versa.
I strongly agree that science gained much (more?) from tech, but disagree about tech being “autonomous”. Islam and China had more impressive tech in 1200 than Europe had in 1650 but Europe in 1650 had spectacularly more impressive science, and oddly, art. In 1650 though, Europe was still generally a minor global player while a century later they were far the dominant player and in 1850 their dominance was utterly unprecedented.
tech was necessary, but to call it “responsible” is to think of it as a more autonomous process than it is. And Bill is right, science has usually gained more from tech than vice versa.
I strongly agree that science gained much (more?) from tech, but disagree about tech being “autonomous”. Islam and China had more impressive tech in 1200 than Europe had in 1650 but Europe in 1650 had spectacularly more impressive science, and oddly, art. In 1650 though, Europe was still generally a minor global player while a century later they were far the dominant player and in 1850 their dominance was utterly unprecedented.