Comment by glenstein

I think science and technology are closely intertwined, and for all the debate about scientific progress, I think it's indisputable that a term like "progress" can be meaningfully used to describe the gains in capability and complexity of technology over time. I don't think any analysis of technology would yield to an interpretation that insisted different technological ages were merely a succession of untranslatable frameworks to which no notion of progress could be descriptive. Some things worked better than others, and that was that.

And if it's true of technology, which depends on science, why couldn't it be true of science too? I'm not even sure there's a clear dividing line between them.