Smidlee said:
rocketpig said:
Smidlee said:
rocketpig said:
The printing press is an invention, not science.
When I reference "true science", I mean science unhindered by outside influences. |
All inventions is based on science. Also science always has outside influences as science needs time and money ; thus not very far from politics. Thus science really grew during WW2 when government was throwing money like mad at science. Even today a lot of our science is the result to invent weapons of war (get an advantage). |
Stop cherry-picking my posts. That's the second time you've done it. What about the other points I made? Technically, an invention is loosely related to science. But in the traditional sense, when someone mentions "science", they're talking about biology, astronomy, geology, any of the "ology" or "omy" words. After all, that is the latin root. If you want to start including inventions, you could use anything from the bow and arrow (physics, gravity) to the nuclear bomb (fission) to show "science". Advancements in science may have allowed the invention of the device (sometimes related to the actual creation of said weapon, eg. atomic weaponry) but the device itself is not "science". Pray tell, what science was involved in the printing press? Ink? Levers? Pulleys? Paper processing? All things that man had mastered centuries previous to the press. It's a combination of other ideas, not science. |
All these things seem so simple in our day so yes all this thing had discovered just like electricity had to be discovered before computers. |
So what? That has nothing to do with science. Explain to me why you think that the press was science.
