science vs technology — Tarik Yildirim

Science (as a form of understanding) gets better as it zooms out. Technology (as a form of service) gets better as it zooms in. Science progresses through unifications and technology progresses through diversifications.
Both science and technology progress like a jellyfish moves through the water, via alternating movements of contractions (i.e. unifications) and relaxations (i.e. diversifications). So neither science or technology can be pictured as a simple linear trend of unification or diversification. Technology goes through waves of standardizations for the sake of achieving efficiency and de-standardizations for the sake of achieving a better fit. Progress happens due to the fact that each new wave of de-standardization (magically) achieving a better fit than the previous wave, thanks to an intermittent period of standardization. Opposite happens in science, where each new wave of unification (magically) reaches a higher level of accuracy than the previous wave, thanks to an intermittent period of diversification.
Unification is easier to achieve in a single mind. Diversification is easier to achieve among many minds. That is why the scientific world is permeated by the lone genius culture and the technology world is permeated by the tribal team-work culture. Scientists love their offices, technologists love their hubs.

“New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organised, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”
- Max Planck

Being the originator of widely adopted scientific knowledge makes the originator powerful, while being the owner of privately kept technological knowledge makes the owner powerful. Hence, the best specimens of unifications quickly get diffused out of the confined boundaries of a single mind, and the best specimens of diversifications quickly get confined from the diffused atmosphere of many minds.
Unifiers, standardizers tend to be more masculine types who do not mind being alone. Diversifiers, de-standardizers tend to be more feminine types who can not bear being alone. That is why successful technology leaders are more feminine than the average successful leader in the business world, and successful scientific leaders are more masculine than the average successful leader in the academic world. Generally speaking, masculine types suffer more discrimination in the technology world and feminine types suffer more discrimination in the scientific world.
Although unifiers play a more important role in science, we usually give the most prestigious awards to the diversifiers who deployed the new tools invented by the unifiers at tangible famous problems. Although diversifiers play a more important role in technology, we usually remember and acknowledge only the unifiers who crystallized the vast efforts of diversifiers into tangible popular formats.
Technological challenges lie in efficient specializations. Scientific challenges lie in efficient generalizations. You need to learn vertically and increase your depth to come up with better specializations. This involves learning-to-learn-new, meaning that what you will learn next will be built on what you learned before. You need to learn horizontally and increase your range to come up with better generalizations. This involves learning-to-relearn-old, meaning that what you learned before will be recast in the light of what you will learn next.
Technology and design are forms of service. Science and art are forms of understanding. That is why the intersection of technology and art, as well as the intersection of science and design, is full of short-lived garbage. While all our “external” problems can be tracked back to a missing tool (technological artifact) or a wrong design, all our “internal” problems can be traced back to a missing truth (scientific fact) or wrong aesthetics (i.e. wrong ways of looking at the world).
Scientific progress contracts the creative space of religion by outright disproval of certain ideas and increases the expressive power of religion by supplying it with new vocabularies. (Note that the metaphysical part of religion can be conceived as “ontology design”.) Technological progress contracts the creative space of art by outright trivialization of certain formats and increases the expressive power of art by supplying it with new tools. (Think of the invention of photography rendering realistic painting meaningless and the invention of synthesizers leading to new types of music.) In other words, science and technology aid respectively religion and art to discover their inner cores by both limiting the domain of exploration and increasing the efficacy of exploration. (Notice that artists and theologians are on the same side of the equation. We often forget this, but as Joseph Campbell reminds us, contemporary art plays an important role in updating our mythologies, and keeping the mysteries alive.)
Scientific progress replaces mysteries with more profound mysteries. Technological progress replaces problems with more complex problems.
Both science and technology progress through hype cycles, science through how much phenomena the brand new idea can explain, technology through how many problems the brand new tool can solve.
Scientific progress slows down when money is thrown at ideas rather than people. Technological progress slows down when money is thrown at people rather than ideas.
Science progresses much faster during peacetime, technology progresses much faster during wartime. Scientific breakthroughs often precede new wars, technological breakthroughs often end ongoing wars.