Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology|Quick homework help

Posted: February 13th, 2023

Please use these questions and the included articles, please make it about 700 words long. Please paraphrase instead of using quotation marks.

a) How do Skolimowski and Bunge define technology?

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology|Quick homework help
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

b) What are their criteria in differentiating between science and technology?

c) Explain the main points of both authors when they try to find the relationship between science and technology.

d) What happens in design process?

The Structure of Thinking in Technology Author(s): Henryk Skolimowski Source: Technology and Culture, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Summer, 1966), pp. 371-383 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the Society for the History of Technology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3101935 Accessed: 29/12/2009 17:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the History of Technology and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Technology and Culture.

http://www.jstor.org

 

 

The Structure of Thinking in Technology HENRYK SKOLIMOWSKI

Inquiry into the philosophy of technology, due to the infancy of the

subject, must start with some reflections on what technology itself is. There is at present a tendency to identify technology with a demiurge of our times, or perhaps even with a Moloch who will bring doom to mankind, that is, mankind as dreamt of by philosophers, not by organi- zation men. In this setting technology assumes a role similar to that which was ascribed to history in the nineteenth century: the role of the final cause which shapes the destiny of mankind and, more specifically, which aims at the total subjugation of man to the machine or, in other words, at turning the human being into a technological component.

It cannot be denied that reflections on technology in this fashion are

philosophical reflections and that consequently they belong to some system of the philosophy of technology. At this point, however, a vital distinction should be made between a philosophy of technology and a technological philosophy. The former belongs to the realm of epistemo- logical inquiry and attempts to situate technology within the scope of human knowledge; the latter belongs to the realm of sociology, broad-

ly conceived, or social philosophy, and is concerned primarily with the future of human society.

Those who prophesy that our civilization will be devoured by the Moloch of technology are expanding a certain vision of the world, are viewing the world through technological lenses, are attempting to establish a new kind of monism, the technological monism, in which the technological order is shown to be the prime mover and the ultimate justification of other orders, moral, aesthetic, cognitive, social, and polit- ical. The articulation of this technological philosophy is perhaps most

important from a social point of view-as a way of alerting us to the dangers of technological tyranny. However, for the time being this technological monism, or whatever name is given to this sociohistorical prophecy, is but a prophecy. As important as it may be from a human

DR. SKOLIMOWSKI, a philosopher of science and technology, is at the School of Philosophy of the University of Southern California.

371

 

 

372 Henryk Skolimowski

point of view, it cannot serve as a substitute for a philosophy of tech- nology proper, that is, for a philosophy that aims at the investigation of the nature and structure of technology, conceived as a branch of human learning and analyzed for its cognitive content.

I shall not be concerned here with the transformation of society by technology. It seems to me that the “monolithic technical world” is but a graphic and perhaps fearsome expression, but not reality. For the time being the evidence that technology pervades the totality of human rela- tionships is rather slim. In the realm of art, for example, modern tech- nology perpetuates at least some traditional human values. The unprece- dented spread of superb reproductions of the great masters, the easy availability of the finest recordings of music of the last five centuries, the spectacular rise in the production and distribution of paperback books, are all due to the advances of technology, and all serve, at least in part, the cause of highbrow culture, not technological culture.

It may be that a comprehensive philosophy of technology should in- clude the moral implications of technological progress. It may be, as some philosophers insist, that, in spite of the semiautonomous develop- ment of technology, a substantial part of modern technology is moved by non-technological forces, that, for example, motor cars are produced in order to make money, intercontinental missiles in order to kill people. Consequently, a comprehensive treatment of the philosophy of technology must examine the presuppositions lying at the foundation of these technological “events” and must attempt to assess their implica- tions for mankind at large. The weight of these problems cannot be underestimated. However, they are outside the scope of my consider- ations.

In this paper I shall be concerned with what I call the philosophy of technology proper, that is, with the analysis of the epistemological status of technology. Technology is a form of human knowledge. Epistemol- ogy investigates the validity of all human knowledge, its conditions, its nature. Therefore, it is the business of epistemology to investigate the peculiarities of technology and its relation to other forms of human knowledge. In particular, it is of crucial importance to analyze the relationship of technology to science. I shall argue in the course of this paper that: (1) it is erroneous to consider technology as being an applied science, (2) that technology is not science, (3) that the differ- ence between science and technology can be best grasped by examining the idea of scientific progress and the idea of technological progress.

In the following sections I shall attempt to provide a basis for a philosophy of technology rooted in the idea of technological progress. Then I shall proceed to show that in various branches of technology

 

 

The Structure of Thinking in Technology

there can be distinguished specific thought patterns which can be seen as explaining technological progress.

* * *

Many methodologists and philosophers of science insist that technol- ogy is in principle a composition of various crafts. Regardless of how sophisticated these crafts may have become, they are still crafts. It is argued that technology is methodologically derivative from other sciences, that it has no independent methodological status, and that what makes it scientific is the application of various other sciences, natural sciences in particular. Thus, the scientific part of technology can be de- composed into particular sciences and accounted for as physics, optics, chemistry, electromagnetics, etc. This view misconstrues the situation because it does not take into account the idea of technological progress.

My thesis is that technological progress is the key to the understand- ing of technology. Without the comprehension of technological prog- ress, there is no comprehension of technology and there is no sound philosophy of technology. Attempts that aim at reducing technology to the applied sciences fail to perceive the specific problem situation in- herent in technology. Although in many instances certain technological advancements can indeed be accounted for in terms of physics or chemistry, in other words, can be seen as based on pure science, it should not be overlooked that the problem was originally not cognitive but technical. With an eye to solving a technical problem, we undertake in- quiries into what is called pure science. Our procedures are extremely selective. Out of infinitely many possible channels of research only very few are chosen. Problems thus are investigated not with an eye to in- creasing knowledge but with an eye to a solution of a technical problem. If it were not for the sake of solving some specific technological prob- lems, many properties of physical bodies never would have been examined, and many theories incorporated afterward into the body of pure science never would have been formulated. Perhaps the most ob- vious examples can be found in the sciences of electronics and of space physics. The development of computors resulted in the replacement of tubes by transistors.

Technology as Applied Science Author(s): Mario Bunge Source: Technology and Culture, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Summer, 1966), pp. 329-347 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press and the Society for the History of Technology Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3101932 Accessed: 30-09-2019 20:14 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

The Johns Hopkins University Press, Society for the History of Technology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Technology and Culture

This content downloaded from 169.235.64.141 on Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:14:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Technology as Applied Science

MARIO BUNGE

The application of the scientific method and of scientific theories to the attainment of practical goals poses interesting philosophical prob- lems, such as the nature of technological knowledge, the alleged validat- ing power of action, the relation of technological rule to scientific law, and the effects of technological forecast on human behavior. These problems have been neglected by most philosophers, probably because the peculiarities of modern technology, and particularly the differences between it and pure science, are realized infrequently and cannot be realized as long as technologies are mistaken for crafts and regarded as theory-free. The present paper deals with those problems and is there- fore an essay in the nearly non-existent philosophy of technology.

Science: Pure and Applied

The terms “technology” and “applied science” will be taken here as synonymous, although neither is adequate: in fact, “‘technology” sug- gests the study of practical arts rather than a scientific discipline, and “applied science” suggests the application of scientific ideas rather than that of the scientific method. Since “technique” is ambiguous and “epis- technique” unborn, we shall adopt the current lack of respect for ety- mology and go over to more serious matters. The method and the theories of science can be applied either to in-

creasing our knowledge of the external and the internal reality or to enhancing our welfare and power. If the goal is purely cognitive, pure science is obtained; if primarily practical, applied science. Thus, where- as cytology is a branch of pure science, cancer research is one of applied research. The chief divisions of contemporary applied science are the physical technologies (e.g., mechanical engineering), the bio- logical technologies (e.g., pharmacology), the social technologies (e.g., operations research), and the thought technologies (e.g., computer sci- DR. BUNGE, a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science, was formerly a pro-

fessor at the University of Buenos Aires; during the academic year 1965-66, he has been visiting at the Institut fur theoretische Physik at the University of Freiburg, and in 1967 he will be at Yale University. He is the author of Causality, The Myth of Simplicity, and other books, including a forthcoming two-volume work entitled Scientific Research.

SOLUTION

a) Jerzy Skolimowski and Mario Bunge have different definitions of technology. Jerzy Skolimowski, a Polish philosopher, defines technology as the “sum total of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.” On the other hand, Mario Bunge, a Argentine philosopher and physicist, defines technology as the “application of scientific and engineering principles to the design, production, and use of goods and services.”

b) Skolimowski and Bunge have different criteria for differentiating between science and technology. According to Skolimowski, science is the study of the natural world, while technology is the application of scientific knowledge to solve practical problems. Bunge, on the other hand, argues that science is concerned with the discovery and explanation of natural phenomena, while technology is concerned with the design and implementation of devices and systems that make use of scientific knowledge.

c) Skolimowski and Bunge both agree that there is a relationship between science and technology, but they have different views on the nature of this relationship. According to Skolimowski, science is the source of knowledge that technology uses to solve practical problems, while technology is the application of this knowledge in the form of machines and systems. Bunge, on the other hand, sees science and technology as complementary, with science providing the fundamental knowledge needed for technology and technology providing the means for testing and validating scientific theories.

d) The design process is the process of creating a new product, system, or solution. It typically involves a series of steps, such as defining the problem, gathering and analyzing data, generating ideas, prototyping and testing, and refining the design. The goal of the design process is to create a solution that meets the needs and requirements of the end-users. In the process, designers use a combination of technical knowledge, creative thinking, and problem-solving skills to create innovative and effective designs.

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00