Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Science at Institute for fundamental studies of Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University
Abstract
The history of pure science-applied science distinction goes back to 19th century. Philosophers of science and technology and science studies practitioners since then have been involved in how to separate pure from applied science. The linear model of the distinction is one of the oldest models on which the goal of pure science is acquiring knowledge, while applied science tries to solve practical problems. In this article, I will argue that the liner model to draw the distinction in nano-science is inadequate. So, another account is needed to distinguish them, provided that our assumption about the distinction per se in nano-science is applicable
Keywords
Boon, M. (2006). How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(01), 27-47.
Bud, R. (2012). “Applied Science”: A Phrase in Search of a Meaning. Isis, 103(3), 537-545.
Bud, R. (2014). ‘Applied science’ in nineteenth-century Britain: public discourse and the creation of meaning, 1817–1876. History and Technology, 30(1-2), 3-36. doi: 10.1080/07341512.2014.921416
Bueno, O. (2006). Representation at the Nanoscale. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 617-628.
Bueno, O., &Colyvan, M. (2011). An Inferential Conception of the Application of Mathematics. Noûs, 45(2), 345-374. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00772.x
Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as Applied Science. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 329-347.
Bush, V. (1945). Science: the Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Calvert, J. (2004). The Idea of ‘Basic Research’ in Language and Practice. Minerva, 42(3), 251-268. doi: 10.1023/B:MINE.0000038307.58765.b4
Cartwright, N. (1976). How do we apply science? In R. S. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos & J. W. Van Evra (Eds.), PSA 1974. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 32, pp. 713-719): Springer.
Channell, D. F. (2017). A History of Technoscience: Erasing the Boundaries Between Scienceand Technology: Routledge.
Coleridge, S. T. (1818). A Treatise on Method. London: B. Fellowes.
Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46, 55-63.
Drexler, K. E. (1992). Nanosystems: molecular machinery, manufacturing, and computation: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eigler, D. M., & Schweizer, E. K. (1990). Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunnelling microscope. Nature, 344(6266), 524-526.
Feibleman, J. K. (1961). Pure science, applied science, technology, engineering: an attempt at definitions. Technology and Culture, 2(4), 305-317.
Folsch, S., Martinez-Blanco, J., Yang, J., Kanisawa, K., & Erwin, S. C. (2014). Quantum dots with single-atom precision. [Letter]. Nat Nano, 9(7), 505-508. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2014.129
French, S. (2003). A Model-Theoretic Account of Representation (Or, I Don't Know Much about Art . . . but I Know It Involves Isomorphism(Philosophy of Science, 70, 1472-1483.
Frigg, R. (2006). Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria, 50, 49–65.
Frigg, R. (2010). Models and fiction. Synthese, 172, 251–268.
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Models in Science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Stanford University.
Frigg, R., & Nguyen, J. (2016). Scientific Representation In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition ed.).
Kant, I., & Friedman, M. (2004 (1786)). Kant: Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science: Cambridge University Press.
Kline, R. (1995). Construing" technology" as" applied science": Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880-1945. Isis, 194-221.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society: Harvard University Press.
Lenhard, J. (2006). Surprised by a nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 605-616.
Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2014). Toward a New Dimension: Exploring the Nanoscale: Oxford University Press, USA.
Mody, C. C. M. (2011). Instrumental community: Probe microscopy and the path to nanotechnology: MIT Press.
Morrison, M. (2006). Applying science and applied science: What’s the difference? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(01), 81-91.
Murphy, C. J., & Coffer, J. L. (2002). Quantum Dots: A Primer. Applied Spectroscopy, 56(1), 16A-27A.
Niiniluoto, I. (1993). The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis, 38(1), 1-21.
Niiniluoto, I. (2014). Values in design sciences. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46(Supplement C), 11-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.11.002
OECD. (2002). Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development: OECD.
Pielke, R. (2012). Basic research as a political symbol. Minerva, 50(3), 339-361.
Rihll, T. E., & Tucker, J. V. (2002). Practice makes perfect: knowledge of materials in classical Athens. Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture, 274-305.
Roll-Hansen, N. (2017). A Historical Perspective on the Distinction Between Basic and Applied Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. doi: 10.1007/s10838-017-9362-3
Suárez , M. (2003). Scientific representation: against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 172, 225-244.
Suárez, M. (2010). Scientific Representation. Philosophy Compass, 5(1), 91-101. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00261.x
Winsberg, E. (2006). Handshaking Your Way to the Top: Simulation at the Nanoscale. In J. Lenhard, G. Küppers & T. Shinn (Eds.), Simulation: Pragmatic Construction of Reality (pp. 139-151). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Winsberg, E. (2009). Models and Theories at the Nano-scale. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 2(1), 139.
)