The first misconception in the book is likely the (unfortunately) common assumption that technology (application) follows science (theory), when the reverse is more usual.
The idea of the steam engine, for example, dates back to somewhere between 15 and 30 B.C., and was made practical by the tinkering of Newcomen (an ironmonger), Stephenson (a mining engineer), and then Watt (a tool maker), a long story of trial and error that resulted in the Industrial Revolution. Thermodynamics, the theory of steam, was developed later, to try and understand why these machines worked.
Perhaps that problem here is that we insist on engaging with technology as a noun, rather than a verb. Technology is best approached as a form of human action, rather than as a ‘thing’. For example, current concerns that workplace monitoring technology is driving us to a dystopia are ignoring the humans commissioning and developing this technology. It is the actions of these humans that should concern us, as it is their actions that will result in the dystopia we fear. New technology creates new possibilities, and it’s how we approach these possibilities that determines if a technology is a force for good or evil. This is why the history of technology is also a story of how communities and societies negotiate within themselves how a technology should be used. While technology is an important factor in public issues, nontechnical factors always take precedence.