I'm "over-educated in Science, Math, Engineering and Technology (SMET) I admit. I got very disgusted about how distorted these items are portrayed in the "public domain"! So I got my needed teacher certification and taught it all at K-Grad(MS) levels, to kids in the lower levels and teachers in the upper.

"My style" seemed to work, and it was not anything really great or more magic than just teaching it as is is known and practiced by the practitioners of it (SMET). So why is it, in the "public domain", so bad still?

I found poor text books, lots of industry and special interest "teacher's materials" on "their" particular flavor of things (often with political and $$$'s spin that should not be there), and so-called non-profit and non-governmental organizations doing the same thing.

Bottom line is that there is/was very poor SMET education throughout the USA. It's actually, in my opinion, all a very broke sysem! I then got even more depressed. I'm wondering now if it's "just me", or a general epidemic?

To find out I wish to propose for debate the following:

1. What is science?

2. What is math, and is it a science too?

3. What is engineering and what is it's relationship, if any, to science and mathematics?

4. What is technology, and how does it relate, if it does at all, to the above three?

1. What is science?

In a base sense to me science is really the scientific method as applied to a broad range of things such as simply put natural phenomena.

2. What is math, and is it a science too?

Yes, but not a natural science.

3. What is engineering and what is it's relationship, if any, to science and mathematics?

Well, if you want to be say a structural engineer, you would have to know about things you might study in physics, chemistry and hey even biology and maybe some social or soft sciences.

4. What is technology, and how does it relate, if it does at all, to the above three?

Well, the above three would basically tie into modern day and past technology and of course our understanding of such in there entirety. Such as back in the day we may not have invested so much into modern forms of energy if we knew about global warming then.

I'll give this a whirl. This is just off the top of my head, so the dictionary will probably disagree with me. However, this is what I think of when I think of these words.

"Science," to me, is a specific process by which human beings create more and more accurate models of the physical universe. This process consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and revision. History has shown that this is the most reliable method for obtaining accurate information about reality. It's really just a more formal version of what we all do. We look around, try to figure out what's going on, test our assumptions, and change our ideas.

"Mathematics," to me, is any process by which abstract concepts are manipulated in an internally consistent way, starting with definitions and axioms. Any mathematical system may or may not be applicable to the physical universe. The everyday calculations we think of as "math" clearly have practical uses, of course. However, something as seemingly nonintuitive as imaginary numbers has practical applications as well, in certain aspects of electrical engineering. It's not always easy to tell which systems of mathematics will be applicable to physical reality. Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry start with different aximons, but both have proved useful in science. In this sense, mathematics is not a science, but the two are deeply connected, like empassioned lovers.

"Technology," to me, is anything in the physical universe which has been manipulated in such a way as to serve the desires of a human being in a way which it could not do in its unaltered state. (As a side issue, it may be of interest to note that some animals other than humans appear to possess a very simple tool-making capacity. When a chimpanzee strips leaves off a stick, in order to use to retrieve ants from an anthill, it is making use of technology.)

"Engineering," to me, is the application of the scientific method to technology, either informally (the local tinkerer, trying to figure out what works) or formally (the application of physics, chemistry, and so on, to practical goals.)

1. What is science?

Its a system of acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation.

2. What is math, and is it a science too?

Math is a science of numbers and is the primary language for science. The other two would be better addressed by a better expert than myself.

I'd agree with this, adding that science is characterized generally by the use of the scientific method. (see how that works out!!)

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge, not a hodgepodge individualistic approach. It is a collective approach, but one in which giants can make their individual mark.

Science is primarily concerned with knowledge and not about applying that knowledge (although that is a secondary concern).

What is math, and is it a science too?

Mathematics is a system developed to quantify and analyze things. It has some of the features of science, but it is not a science. The study of mathematic principles could be considered a science. I'd also agree with Tim that mathematics is often the language of some science. Not all science, however.

What is engineering and what is it's relationship, if any, to science and mathematics?

Engineering is the application of knowledge (acquired by science) for practical benefits. Engineers design things that people use. They also analyze things to determine their properties, uses, and limits. I define an engineer as a problem solver in the technology and design realm. Engineers solve problems by designing new things or applying old principles to new situations.

Engineers use mathematics much more than scientists do, mainly in an analytical sense, as their jobs often involve safety and figuring out what limits their designs are have.

What is technology, and how does it relate, if it does at all, to the above three?

Technology is a categorization of applied science. The higher the level of technology, the more scientific knowledge the society is able to bring to solve their problems. In this sense, it is a measure of the engineering capabilities the society has and how good of a job its engineers have done at solving problems.

1. What is science?

Science is a method of observing and interpreting the physical universe. It has worked generally better than other ways of knowing the physical universe, such as meditation and deity-inspired writing. By this I mean in regards to technology, not necessarily the survival of species.

2. What is math, and is it a science too?

Math is the language of science, just as English is the dominant language of the US. A big difference is that math language is also a universal language among scientists, engineers and technicians, no matter what their dominant spoken and written languages happen to be.

3. What is engineering and what is it's relationship, if any, to science and mathematics?

Engineering is finding the practical applications of science as described with math. Quantum physics has proven to work nicely for very small integrated circuitry. Relativity works quite well for space exploration. The two systems of math contradict one another, but so what. They work for their respective hunks of the universe.

Discovery of a unification theory might help out some, but I doubt it. Actually, I'll keep my mind open for the possibilities, as unification theory might allow better survival of species. So far we've been pretty bad at this.

4. What is technology, and how does it relate, if it does at all, to the above three?

Technology is what most of us work with, from a hammer to a Hummer. Technology takes the practical applications as developed in engineering and does the physical work that the engineering has enabled.

I'm a computer tech in this sense. I do not create the next generation of Sun midiron machines. I just make them run and keep them running. Sun engineers figure out how to make the machines run faster and do more work in less space, using less electricity and so forth. The techniques of doing this are based on many scientific studies regarding materials and energies.

Here is the hierarchy: science at the base, engineering in the middle, technology on top.

It's important to realize that science needs technology and so does engineering. This can be stated in all three combinations: technology needs science and engineering; engineering needs science and technology.

For example, engineers need equipment to do their jobs. Scientists need instruments. Everyone needs computers! Arf, I win.

So, how'd I do for an English major?

Just for the record, I've done IBM mainframe., IBM midrange and tech writing along this sometimes bumpy path too. There is so much bovine effluence due to marketing, which is the science of lying straight faced. But, that's how our economy works in the physical universe. Sorry about that.

Then there are the problems of the human condition, which aren't science at all. That's better described in literature than through mathematics. Psychology takes a swag at it, but sorry folks. People are not that simple.

I'm not sorry about the human condition. It makes life interesting, if sometimes painful.

Thanks all for your comments on my topic!. You all are much closer to where I am than what started my question, which was what I found under these "terms" in the various WIKIPEDIA, www.wikipedia.org, definitions, discussions, archives, "sister projects", etc. These included more than just the one's I asked about, such as "What is the scientific method?".

I am now taking "my fight" to the Wikipedia page. I will put my defs into this topic FYI in a bit, and will encourage comments/corrections on them there. Thanks again.---Lek

Results of jousting WIKEPEDIA on "science":

As I promised, I will report on my efforts to get WIKEPEDIA to take this topic on. Essentially it is zilch. I left them recommending that they formally request definitions, and documentation thereof,as they have some esoteric requirement on "verification" that seems to me to be academic useless rumination. I suggested they get inputs from "expert science societies" and I specifically recommended that they start with the "Society of the Sigma Xi", which I believe is the most "balanced and generic" of such societies. (There are indeed many, many science societies from which they could obtain candidate definitions.)

I really doubt that anything useful will converge out of there efforts. And, that is both very discouraging and dissappointing to me.

I know of few things that we more need definitions of than these I asked for. There is way too much waste, fraud, abuse and misuse of $$$'s, public lands, public assets and bloated "science, engineering, math and technology" bureaucracy that all stem from this lack.

On the other hand, I truly believe that the practitioners of these arts, do indeed know what they are and are very capable of knowing the true from the false. And I fear that the bureaucraticized "peer review structures" that are much touted, are not representative of the true practitioners or their art(s).

Sorry, I juess I failed here!---Regards, Lek.

Take Stephan Hawkins for example. In his equation to explain black holes the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy don’t seem to apply. His equation of sorts was outdone by another equation that kept in line with these observed natural laws. I don’t know if peer review is so much a bureaucracy as a needed measure that has proved in time to be successful for combing out fallacy really.

Science again is nothing more then a methodology. IN the hands of people I am sure it will become much more, such as some "scientifically proven" weight loss pill. Now the science behind that is in a few months of testing on rats they lost weight and did not develop cancer, and that might have been good enough for area 51 aka the FDA. The amount of ignorance that exists in just about everything is staggering actually and I am sure will take just about forever to stave off. If science could not produce anything objective it simply would not exist overall in a state of much anything I would say, I think it would be safe to say it probably would not exist at all, and simply would be something in history books. I think this is where science and engineering divide though I am sure engineers have there fair share of R&D to contend with.

More examples of such. Biology, scientific method applied to living things really. Chemistry, scientific method applied to matter. Physics, scientific method applied to matter/energy.

Science is a methodology pure and simple, and that’s all it will ever be. Reductionist is another term that can be associate to it though that word seems to generate some debate in terms of application.

For the ultimate in circular definitions: A scientist uses technology and math to study things methodically. A mathemetician uses symbolism to analyze things numerically. An engineer applies science and math to invent new technology. A technologist studies and applies the things engineers invent.

The scientist asks "What?" The mathemetician asks "How?" The engineer asks "Why?" The historian asks "When?" The geographer asks "Where?" The biographer asks "Who?" The journalist tries to answer them accurately in 30 words or less by 6:00 PM.

Edited to add...

Math is not usually a science. Many mathemeticians can be considered scientists who apply the scientific method to advance the field of math; however, math itself can be used outside of science by accountants, farmers, fishermen, construction workers, doctors, lawyers, etc. Not by many politicians, though.

Perhaps I can help by pointing out what they are not?

1. Science is not much related to "global warming" or the evil that the USA has supposedly done to "the planet".

2. Math is not much related to democrat calculations with respect to social security or the "Clinton surplus". Math is certainly also not much related to democat assertions (John Kerry et. al) that litigation and the impact of the legal sector has only a 5% impact on the cost of health care delivery in the USA.

3. Engineering? Well, engineering cuts through the baloney (read politics mentioned in 1 and 2) and has to "manage" math, science, and all of the disciplines to provide deliverables that people will actually pay money for. Engineering made what you typed your message on, for example. It's "practical". It takes theory and makes things real.

4. Technology is basically everything that man "engineers".

1. What is science?
The closes thing to the truth that you will ever get.

2. What is math, and is it a science too?
It is a sub sector of science and needed everyday life.

3. What is engineering and what is it's relationship, if any, to science and mathematics?
Engineering is the developing of products and how to distribute those products to enhance the quality of life.

4. What is technology, and how does it relate, if it does at all, to the above three?
Technology is computers genetic engineering of foods, you car, etc. and it relates to the topic above because it take the development math, science and most importantly engineering to develop new technology to better improve our lives.

I answer my own question(s) with the following:

1. Science has a verb meaning of: to follow the scientific method of "Observe, Hypothesize and Test" in any order on a domain of interest (to find out how that domain "works"). It also has a noun meaning of: all that "successful (meaning not yet proven wrong) knowledge collected" for each and every such domain of interest.

2. Math is controversially a science (with most of the controversy being from the practicing research mathematicians). But, I personally hold it to be a science because its premises and axioms are observations, its hypotheses are its conjectures and as yet unproven theorems, and its tests are the methods of proof. (I include mathematical logic in math, making it more than "just number stuff", though many do not, to include the the proof methods, the science of proof and logic, a part of mathematics.)

3. Engineering is a science of design and production with requirements of "public good/safety added". Its verb part creates new such methods, its noun part is based on the noun parts of the rest of the sciences and a lot that is considered to be technology. It is mathematical because so much of it's content turns out to be in math terms, and because it "so heavily uses" the rest of the sciences' knowledge, which is also usually in math terms.

4. Technology is a subset of any of the above which is used to create new goods and services, and usually relies on very special domains of skill and knowledge to be successful. Usually older technologies get replaced by newer and more successful ones to perform the same functions, i.e. electronics going from lumped components to vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits, each replacing its predecessor.

There are of course acceptable variations on all these definitions. My concern in making the post was that many folks in the care, feeding, funding and practice of these four, add too much to their definitions that is not at the core of these activities. Typical of such are the validation of, the peer review of, the publication of, the fiducially responsible management of, etc., the above activities. In the process of making these additions, too much is lost in our knowing what we are publicly funding, getting in return, or have available for school teaching at all levels. The worst offendors are those who, to me, greatly muddle-up the definition of "the secientific method!

This post topic is a personal sore point with me. I see it to be a huge source of public waste, fraud and abuse. My firm belief is that better "basic working definitions" of all these are needed for our public funding and review mechanisms and for teachers to teach with!

Thanks to all who contributed. I saw some great stuff! Over and out.---Lek