What is the difference between a robot and an android?

I have always wondered why Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation says, I am not a robot, I am an android. What is the difference? Seriously.

Definition:

Android - a mobile robot usually with a human form

Robot - 1 a: a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b: an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
3: a mechanism guided by automatic controls

So what you're saying, amblessed, is that there is NO difference?

Not what I'm saying - that's how the Dictionary defined them - I notice android says 'human form' (possibly meaning 'skin covered') and robot says 'like a human being' (possibly meaning 'equipped with arms, head, etc but not 'human simulated skin covering') - just a guess :-) maybe we should phone home (Hollywood)

LOL! Phone home...haha! That's funny! Thanks for your answer anyway. :D

I've always understood an Android to be a human-like robot, whereas a Robot can be any sort of shape or form - for example, there are robots which are used in car manufacture but they look nothing like people - usually they are long mechanical arms that can perform complex tasks, but don't have any legs, body, head etc. Robots can also be round discs which run around the floor too. Anyway, that's what I've always assumed the difference to be - an Android is a type of Robot.

If we translate that to ourselves, I guess rather than Androids and Robots its Humans and Animals, since scientifically we are supposedly a type of animal - I am not an animal, I am a Human might be your reply to Data!

Hey danbob...thank you for your response. I had thought about what you said, but then a thought hit me. What about Star Wars? R2D2 was an android - remember Luke calling them 'droids? And R2 looks nothing like a human really. So that is the main reason for my asking the question. Sure, C3P0 looked kinda human, but not R2D2. Oh, and the robots in the movie I, Robot look very human-like, but they are called robots! Go figure! AAAHHH!

Hi spiralbutterfly... you are indeed correct about R2D2 and the I, Robot robots (as an aside, _why_ did they say they came from US Robotics? surely they look more like Apple made them - iRobot, anyone?). I didn't think of them... argh, it gets confusing now!

Perhaps its more related to function than appearance - if a robot is smart, as in it thinks for itself (or almost does) then maybe its an Android. But then I don't think that still works for the I, Robot robots - they seemed to be sort of smart. Certainly Andrew from Bicentennial Man was called an Android, and his function was similar to those from I, Robot. But then the I, Robot robots were not totally autonomous - they were able to be controlled and manipulated by that central computer thing (except for one), so maybe that doesn't quite make them Androids. Or maybe Hollywood thought I, Robot sounds better than I, Android. But certainly, Androids do seem to be a lot cleverer and autonomous (I.e. unreliant on others or other things) than Robots.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hehe... Oh spiral, I thought you were working!!!
I think the terms have been used indiscrimately to define both androids and robots, the definitions from the dictionary (your first response) would have been very accurate some time ago, since, Androids (the name comes from the word Andro that means Man, Hombre, in greek or ancient greek) I guess were defined as humanoids, like in another of your responses, applied more to function (behavior) than shape. Through the extense library on your mind (filmography) I am sure you can spot many different Androids that have even showed human emotions at times.. so, you have, using all your responses of course a little more light... but not a final clarity on this... you will not have it ever, film makers will continue to use the terms as they see fit for your perpetual wondering... Hey! I hope you can sleep tonight!! hehe...

Androids are typically - in fiction - comprised of parts which actually resemble the human anatomy - e.g. artificial blood and an artificial skin membrane. Robots are not; robots are intelligent machines which may resemble humans in their form, but not in their characteristics. One could say that an android is more sentient than a robot.

the term and/r means human and -oid means like. so android means that it is human like. a robot can be any machine that performs a function, like the kind that weld car parts together

Actually I think the main difference between androids and robots is the three laws of robotics.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I think androids are more of the free will kind of ALF.

The word robot comes from the Czech word 'roboto' or 'labour'. A robot is a machine/servent/slave. The word android derives from the ancient Greek for 'man of the species'. So, as Twiggy777 states, Data is more than just a machine.

As for someone mentioning R2D2 C3P0, I'd say they were an/droids by quirk rather than design. R2's a repair droid computer interface. A machine. Nothing more. Note that no other R2 unit in Star Wars had as much of a character as he did. C3P0 had to have personality inbuilt due to his function as interpreter so it could be argued that he was an android.