Difference Between

I see where you’re coming from Olivia, but like all semantic arguments you fall victim to your own preconceptions.

>”You invent something that did not previously exist. You discover a real thing that is already >existent.”

I believe “something” and “a real thing” are, if not synonyms, then at least concepts that overlap. Therefore, I maintain you could equally have said: “You invent a real thing that did not previously exist. You discover something that is already existent.” (Side note, “already existent” is redundant; what you mean is “preexisting.”) If we subtract the language common to both definitions, in addition to any redundant wording, we’re left with what I believe is the thrust of your argument: “You invent [what] did not exist. You discover [what] preexists.”

>”Can you still call discovery an accident. It cannot be called an accident though since it has a >purpose. The scientist or the biologist purposefully found out the thing. Therefore discovery cannot >be called an accident.”

Having been a biological scientist myself for 10 years I can tell you quite conclusively that it has no basis in fact or logic. Some of science’s greatest “discoveries” were made by “accident” or “serendipity.” Quite frequent a scientist will be conducting an experiment with a specific purpose in mind only to discover that (usually) by some failure of design, or execution, or conditions, or understanding, the scientist has discovered something they weren’t looking for.

>”Invention is a process, whereas discovery need not be a process. Invention can be the result of >experimentation, whereas discovery is the determination of an existence. You determine the >existence of something in a discovery, whereas you create something by experimentation in an >invention.”

Again, I’m going to have to stop you here and say that is a poorly conceived argument. It’s a generally accepted principle that ANYTHING can happen by accident. Invention need not be the result of the process of experimentation (and make no mistake, experimentation is a process.) Likewise, in modern science, virtually ALL discoveries (what you call “determination of an existence”) are the result of experimentation. Therefore I propose what your last sentence should state is: “Through the purposeful process of experimentation X1 (which is a form of exploration), or inadvertently (through error or circumstance), a scientist may determine the existence of (or discover) X2. Similarly, through the purposeful process of experimentation Y1 (which is a form of exploration), or inadvertently (through error or circumstance), an individual may determine the existence of (or create, or invent) Y2.”

>”Invention has nothing to do with nature, whereas discovery has everything to do with nature and >surroundings. Discovery involves civilizations whereas invention does not involve civilizations. >Mohenjodaro was a discovery whereas airplane was an invention. Mohenjodaro has to do with a >civilization while airplane has nothing to do with civilization.”

Here you draw an over-broad conclusion, indeed a generalization, based on a very specific example. Inventions rely on the principles and laws that govern nature (e.g., the Bernoulli principle for generating lift from an airplane wing) and may even exclusively employ the products of nature (e.g., genetically-modified organisms). Moreover, civilizations may be the driving force behind the impulse to invent (e.g., prehistoric man’s transition to an agrarian lifestyle from a nomadic one.)

And so, Olivia, I proffer a revised summary on the difference between invention and discovery should read as follows:

An invention is a man-made creation, whereas a discovery is the awareness and/or understanding of an existing natural phenomenon.

Both invention and discovery can result from a preconceived systematic process of experimentation, or by completely unintended consequences.

Invention, which relies on the physical laws and principles governing the existence and activity of our universe, requires man-made manipulation of environment to produce an intended consequence that would otherwise have not occurred. On the other hand, discovery is the elucidation of the very physical laws and universal principles from which invention is possible.