Philosophy of Technology

An Introduction for Technology and Business Students

Maarten Verkerk, Jan Hoogland, Jan van der Stoep, Marc de Vries

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317445708
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Business General

Philosophy of Technology: An introduction for technology and business students is an accessible guide to technology's changes , their ubiquitousness, and the many questions these raise. Designed for those with no philosophical background in mind, it is ideal for technology and engineering students or specialists who want to learn to think critically about how their work influences society and our daily lives.

The technological, business environment and daily experiences are the starting point of the book and the authors' reflect upon these practices from a philosophical point of view. The text goes on to present a critical analysis of the subject including development, manufacturing, sales and marketing and the use of technological products and services. The abstract ideas are made easier to grasp with a story-telling approach: a vivid history of the discipline and colourful portraits of the core thinkers in this domain, as well as four case studies drawing from various engineering disciplines to demonstrate how philosophy can and should influence technology in practice.

The first comprehensive introduction to this vibrant young sub-discipline in over 20 years, this is an ideal textbook for students of technology and engineering beginning a course or project in the philosophy of their subject.

Part I

Thinking and making

1

Thinking and Technology

Between analysis and criticism

Summary

Philosophy of technology is a subject in which one reflects on technological thinking and acting with regard to technology. Philosophy regarding technology has three functions. The analytical function means that one attempts to make good definitions of concepts and in this way to create a conceptual framework. The critical function is directed at having a discussion on the issue whether the working of technology is harmful or beneficial. The directional function attempts to determine what would be a good development of technology. Philosophy of technology is a relatively new subject field. In the past decades four themes have emerged: technology as artefacts, as knowledge, as processes and as a part of our being human.

Engineers are often practically minded people. After all, they are busy with things that are focused on everyday practice. They make things, maintain and repair technical apparatus, and design sophisticated systems. To be sure, technology is not merely a matter of dexterous hands, but also a matter of knowledge. One can study technology. But often that knowledge is of a practical nature and focused directly on its application in daily life. To most people philosophy is the direct opposite. It sometimes seems as if there is nothing practical at all in philosophy. This is a subject field generally regarded as a kind of unworldly activity. Philosophers ask bizarre questions, like: What is ‘being’?, What is ‘knowing’?, What is ‘time’?, What is ‘truth’? and What is ‘reality’? These questions sound particularly strange since the answers seem to be so obvious. Do we not all know the meaning of ‘being’, ‘knowing’, ‘time’, ‘truth’ and ‘reality’? What is the point in asking these questions? And, moreover, engineers think: how can the answer to such questions help me in my practical technical work? Thom Morris’s book Philosophy for Dummies (1999) was intended for a wide audience. In it he jokingly quotes Voltaire who is poking fun at himself while examining the (apparently) not so practical focus of philosophers. ‘If the listener does not comprehend the intention of the speaker, and if the speaker himself does not comprehend his intention, then you are dealing with philosophy’ (Morris, 1999: 14).

Indeed, the question of practical usefulness is not the most obvious one when philosophy is concerned. One might ask oneself whether the question of practical usefulness should indeed always be raised. For there are many areas in life where one would not ask such a question. Imagine, if in the choice of a partner one were led by the question of practical usefulness. However, these apparently very impractical questions become more relevant for engineers when we define them more closely. Thus one can, for instance, ask: What actually is a technical thing (which then really is the question of being, applied to technology)? When does one call something ‘natural’ and when does one call it ‘technical’? Or: What is technical knowledge and in what respects does it differ from scientific knowledge (or the question of knowing, but then applied to technology)? Is technology applied physical science or is it something different? For engineers who consciously strive to contribute to a healthy society, a philosophical reflection on technology is particularly useful, for it can help them to define their own technical thinking and conduct. Therefore, engineers would also have to count among the ‘reflective practitioners’ as Donald Schön (1983) calls them.

In this chapter we will be looking at three ways in which philosophy can help them in their reflection. Subsequently, we give consideration to the development of philosophy of technology and the themes which it lays on the table. We also discuss the specific perspective from which this book was written.

1.1 Functions of philosophy

How can philosophical reflection be useful to an engineer? To answer this we have to differentiate between three functions of philosophy. In the first instance, philosophy has an analytical function. Philosophy helps with the development of conceptual frames. Often discussions are fruitless because there is no proper consensus on the meaning of the terms that are used. A distinct example in technology is the discussion about whether technology is or is not applied physical science. Supporters of the statement that technology is nothing more than applied physical science point out examples like the laser and the transistor which were indeed more or less direct consequences of scientific research. A somewhat older example, the atom bomb, was the stimulus for Vannevar Bush, scientific advisor to President Roosevelt, after the end of the Second World War, to write a report, entitled Science: the Endless Frontier in which it was recommended that the technology policy of the government be geared to basic research only since it would always in one way or another lead to industrial applications. The report had great influence. Companies like Bell in the USA and Philips in the Netherlands tailored their research policies to it and stimulated the kind of research advised by Vannevar Bush. However, over the following two decades they observed that this strategy did not always work. Philips had frustrating experiences with its work on hot air engines. Although the researchers consistently made progress in capturing the behaviour of the hot gas in computer models, they did not succeed in making this type of engine commercially viable.

Opponents of the statement that technology is applied physical science would point out that the history of these engines shows clearly that Robert Stirling designed them before the thermodynamic theories on the behaviour of hot gases had been developed. Stirling, who was by no means an engineer, but a church minister, for the greater part worked by intuition. He used the idea of heat as a kind of fluid that has long since been discarded. The answer to the question whether technology is or is not applied physical science therefore depends very much on what one understands by the term technology. If one presupposes that technology is characterised by developments like the laser, transistor and atom bomb, one might conclude that technology indeed is applied physical science. But if one supposes, rather, that technology is characterized by developments like a hot air engine, one comes to the opposite conclusion. Clarity on the meaning of the concept ‘technology’ therefore is essential for having a fruitful discussion on the question of whether technology is or is not applied physical science.

The above example is used to indicate that clarity on concepts is important in allowing a good discussion. We want to emphasise that it is more than a game with language. There are philosophers who are of the opinion that the analytical function of philosophy is exclusively a matter of language. Analysis would then only concern the reality of the language and not the reality represented by means of language. According to these philosophers what we mean by a speech act is nothing more than an agreement between human beings. Speech acts do have meanings but according to these philosophers these are not to be found in their reference to an underlying reality. We, however, are convinced that the primary goal of language is to enable us to speak about reality. Hence with regard to concepts one can indeed raise the question of whether they give an adequate representation of reality.

A second role of philosophy is to look critically at reality. In the philosophy of technology, this function emerges in the critical analysis of the role that technology has played, still plays and will have to play in culture and society. In this critical analysis value judgements are expressed that encompass the total development of science and technology. The main issue is whether technology constitutes a threat to human beings or actually contributes to their well-being. The critical function of philosophy is connected to its analytical function. If it is set up effectively the critical view uses the conceptual framework developed by means of the analytical function. Without analysis no satisfactory criticism is possible. But there is also a dependency that works the other way round: establishing a good conceptual framework becomes more or less meaningless if that framework is never used for having a good critical discussion. Thus, in critical views on technology a horror scenario is sometimes sketched in which technology as an autonomous phenomenon jeopardises the freedom of Western humanity. Technology then gets the same function as ‘big brother’ in the novel 1984 by George Orwell that to a great extent determines the life of individual citizens. If such a view is based on a hazy understanding of what technology really is, it could be equally biased as the very positive view that sees only blessings in technology. This view is also found in philosophy of technology. On the one hand we can only evaluate such views if we approach the nature and character of modern technology analytically. On the other hand this kind of view makes us more sensitive to possible blind spots in our analytical investigation of technology.

A third function of philosophy is to point direction. A critical analysis of culture and society automatically leads to the question ‘Well, then how …’ (should it be seen)? The directional function of philosophy is of great significance for technology. It concerns questions like ‘What is a good apparatus?’, ‘What is the influence of technology on human beings and society?’, ‘When may we apply a certain technique and when not?’, ‘What are the effects of new techniques on the environment?’, and ‘To what extent can technology solve problems in our society?’ All these types of questions are encountered in the ethics of technology. The directional function of philosophy is closely linked to the analytical and critical functions. The ethics of technology can only be properly developed on the basis of the analysis of technology and in dialogue with the criticism of technology. Thus, the ethics of technology will also have to consider seriously the question to what extent modern technology endangers the freedom of Western humanity. It can only have a meaningful reflection by extensively analysing modern technology and identifying the (possible) social implications in a critical manner. In this way only will the ethics of technology be able to express itself normatively on the development of modern technology.

Technology has long been a neglected topic in philosophy. And that is strange when one realises how important technology is in our culture. Perhaps this is because most philosophers did not pursue any technical studies (and still do not). Or perhaps it is a remnant of the old platonic idea that science as a spiritual activity is much more important than the crude technical activity of engineers. Whatever the case, it is only since the late twentieth century that philosophy of technology has been spoken of. The fact that most philosophers who expressed themselves on technology had no technical background could certainly be detected in their ideas. They often spoke in very general terms about technology without really sensing that there are significant differences between the various technical disciplines. An architect is a completely different kind of engineer to a mechanical engineer or a chemical engineer. Therefore, in more recent philosophy of technology increasing use is made of historical and sociological case studies in order to understand the practice of various technologies before making generalisations about technology.

Until recently, literature in the subject field was almost exclusively written by German and French authors who focused mostly on the critical function of philosophy. In this regard we speak of ‘Continental’ philosophers since they lived and worked mostly on the European continent. This approach led to very general statements about technology which often did not see much good in technology. Technology was assumed to be the cause of a deprived experience of reality, of an exploitation of nature, of all kinds of environmental problems, of ‘ordinary men and women’ experiencing a strong feeling of powerlessness and of being technically dominated. Other ‘Continental’ authors have highlighted the blessings of modern technology. They thought – often without any critical notes – that every problem in society could be solved with the help of technology. The latter view probably had even greater influence in practice than the more critically focused view. In Part III of this book a number of these philosophers and their ideas are reviewed. This form of philosophy of technology was mostly practised by people who themselves stood outside of technology. In a book that has become a classic, Thinking Through Technology (1994), Carl Mitcham, an American philosopher of technology, refers to this as a ‘humanities philosophy of technology’ (Mitcham, 1994: 39 et seq.).

The second approach, practising the analytical function of philosophy with regard to technology has only recently begun and philosophers of technology have started concerning themselves with questions like ‘What do we actually mean when we say “technology” or “technical artefact”, or “technical knowledge”?’ These are concepts used by engineers, and their exact meanings are not always clear. So, for instance, much is said and written about knowledge management in technological industries but what exactly is understood by ‘knowledge’ often is not clear. This can lead to misunderstanding and confusion, for instance when a certain view of knowledge leads to too high expectations regarding the possible effects of knowledge management. A thorough reflection on what we understand by knowledge can then lead to a meaningful analysis of knowledge management. This is merely an example of the usefulness of the analytical function of philosophy and this is often practised by people who have also studied technology themselves. So Mitcham calls it an ‘engineering philosophy of technology’ (Mitcham, 1994: 19 et seq.).

1.2 Growing a philosophy of technology

How philosophy of technology has grown over time can be illustrated in a concise overview of some important persons in the history of this discipline. It is difficult to know where such an overview should start. In any case, the first philosopher to use the expression ‘Philosophy of technology’ was the German Ernst Kapp (1808–1896). In 1877 he published a book with the title Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik (Basics of a Philosophy of Technology). In that book he claims that one could view technology as a complement to our human body. By means of technological aids we support and strengthen the functioning of our human limbs and organs. A pair of spectacles means a support for our eyes, while binoculars are a strengthening thereof. Pots and pans are extensions of our hands in respect of what objects we can hold. So are a knife and an axe, but then with respect to the ability of our hands to separate things. In his approach Kapp also makes use of metaphors. Thus he viewed the railway network as an externalisation of our blood circulatory system and the telegraph as an extension of our nervous system. Kapp was inspired by the German philosopher Georg W.F. Hegel. So was Karl Marx. And this is the one person we can definitely not omit among philosophers who reflected on technology. Marx had high expectations that technology would help in realising a classless society. If technology could come into the hands of the workers, an ideal society could come into being. Kapp and Marx were both philosophers without a technological background. However, a few decades later there also were engineers who began using the term ‘philosophy of technology’. One of them was the Russian Peter K. Engelmeier (1855–1941). In 1911 he published an article for a philosophy conference entitled Philosophie der Techniek (Philosophy of technology). In this article he emphasised the role of the human will in technology. For a while he would be one of the few engineers to help in establishing the philosoph...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• List of contributors
• Foreword: Philosophy, Technology, and Glocalisation
• Preface
• Part I: Thinking and making
• Part II: Making and designing
• Part III: Designing and thinking
• Index