What is Science?

In Ravetz’s article “What Is Science?� he provides many images of science. Science as techniques; natural magic; the pursuit of truth; the technocratic conception of science and science as dirty work. These images of science are viewed by many different social, political, academic and religious groups and by reviewing and commenting on these categories in Ravetz’s article, with the support of recent news paper articles, the different images should become clearer.
The images of science as techniques and natural magic according to Ravetz are the two headings that the general public’s appreciation of science fits under. The image of techniques “is the collection of devices that make life easier to live, or the destruction of life more efficient.� 1 From this view about the image of science as techniques Ravetz is describing how society only really values ‘science’ as a means to enable them to live an easier life.
John O’neil exemplifies this view in the New York Times article titled “Aging: Troubles in the Medicine Cabinet.� O’neil speaks about the incredibly high rate of people taking medicines to prevent or overcome an illness. “Surveys show that almost half of Americans over sixty five take fi

Pepsi were quick to adopt combined with new technologies.”7 As you can see this is an example where companies have applied science to its production so that profits may continue to grow.

By critically reviewing and commenting on Ravetz’s article on the different images of science such as techniques, natural magic, the pursuit of truth, the technocratic conception of science and science as dirty work and with the examples from recent newspaper articles we have gained a better knowledge of science as a whole and the many different views that it can be looked at. As Ravetz says “The understanding of science is truly fragmented; but each of these fragments reflects an important aspect of the total thing.”13