You desperately need a better understanding of the word "science". It's not just people in white coats working in labs. In fact, throughout most of history, science was very practical, and only with the extreme specialization and depths we have reached during the past few decades has it become so largely theoretical.
Perhaps I'm desperate, but the original posting was about the use of science as an explanation for reality. This used to be called "natural philosophy" as opposed to the practical arts. Modern terminology would tend to call these "science" and "technology". Technology really has no particular use in explaining reality, while (parts of) science does. So, it is useful, rather than desperate, to make the distinction.
People made planes without physics?
I do believe the Wright brothers did not derive their airplane designs from the science of physics.
Many modern day integrated circuits wouldn't work without understanding quantum mechanics....
This is more debatable than you probably think. Integrated circuits are largely based on field-effect transistors, the operation of which can be pretty clearly explained without resort to quantum mechanics: A larger electric field on a gate produces a higher barrier to charges trying to flow through the gate region. But the OP said computers, which were originally built on mechanical means before the invention of electronics.
People made everything you describe without using scientific theories.
Wait... what? How do you think engineering works? Do you think it's just "well lets try it this way and see what happens" until it magically works? There is a reason that major inventions and discoveries are often made by two otherwise unconnected people, it's because science has advanced to the point that the application is there to be found. The Wright brothers practically invented the science of aerodynamics especially as it applies to propeller design. Without their scientifically derived understanding of the science of airflow they would never have gotten off the ground. Integrated circuits didn't just pop into existence, they were designed by some very smart people in a variety of labs applying very cutting edge theories about electricity and materials.
I am an engineer, so I'm not speaking of something that I'm unfamiliar with. IMHO, to a large extent, engineering and technology is based on using existing discoveries without regard to whether the theoretical scientific underpinnings are true or not, or even if there are scientific underpinnings. A few examples based on things you've mentioned:
Cars: developed based on motor technology, which was initially developed without any reasonable scientific theoretical basis. The initial motor development was of steam engines. Thermodynamics was developed as a RESULT of trying to understand why steam engines worked the way they did and how to make them most efficient. The technology came before the science.
Metals: bronze and steel making goes back literally millenia before the development of metallurgy as a science. By trial and error, accident, and building on things that worked before. No theories.
The airplane: developed by a couple of bicycle shop owners. Not based on fluid dynamics or an existing science of aerodynamics. Again, the science really followed the development of a technology. Maybe we're having a semantic quibble over scientific method here, but I see the Wright's efforts as technological implementation based on trial and error rather than a process of theoretical understanding of aerodynamics leading to wing design.
Integrated circuits: This was a technological development based on work to try to get multiple transistors fabricated on a single substrate. The invention of the transistor itself is much closer to the science->invention model, since the inventors were actively looking for a semiconductor replacement for the vacuum tube.
Drifting off the original topic....
Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson
