Types of Technology as Knowledge

This chapter from the start aimed to use the same type of argument as chapter seven, except it used a different approach. As said in the first part of the chapter, technology as knowledge is simple technology under scrutiny, as In technology that is not favored by the public. For the majority of the chapter, technology is described as an applied science which makes sense considering earlier on in the book, ideas were related to science. For the most part I agree with what is happening in the chapter, especially the fact that Bunge was against technology as just an applied science. As the title suggests, technology is not just “artifacts” or objects that are made for everyday life, but it pertains to anything we as human beings have developed for the advancement of humanity. Technology as knowledge can be summed up into several described places including theories, maxims, technemes, and laws. After reading this chapter, though I could have expressed each of those areas myself, Mitcham made sense, and I for one am grateful.

Types of Technology as an Object

Chapter seven was a great chapter in that no philosophy was really used in order for Mitcham to bring his point across. This chapter entirely revolved around objects and they’re place in technological history. He describes these objects as artifacts, and when technology is referenced, those artifacts are what we think of. Essentially, we as humans only consider tools and actual objects pieces of technology. That is until Ivan Illich calls out this assertion, and questions the relevance of poems, books, or thoughts in general. It seems as though Illich is saying that in order for something to be consider technology, a person must be able to sense it, as in using their senses. He does make a point by saying that the technology developed by earlier civilizations reflects the lives of the people who developed it. One thing I do disagree with is calling objects of technology “artifacts.” Calling something an artifact dates the object tremendously and cuts down technology developed by earlier civilizations. The modern technology we develop today should not be degraded by comparing it to something developed hundreds of years ago. One thing I did like, which was towards the end of the chapter was Don Ihde’s comparison between the words Human, Instrument, and world. I see why this is the chapter being graded, because it really is the first one that really pertains to our generation.

From Philosophy to Technology

In this chapter, Mitcham builds upon the ideal that humanity would be nowhere without technology. He essentially compares the ancient man to ancient tools initially, before developing philosophical reasons why he believes this. Overall the chapter kind of made sense, though most of the time, philosophy does because of its nature. Its entirely opinion, but what he’s saying is that there would be no humanity without tool or technology. Think about what separates the human race from the rest of the animal world. Other than thumbs, we as human beings have the ability to problem solve and create solutions unlike any animal ever has. That’s why our race is so successful and that’s what Mitcham believes that as a race, we would not have a humanity as we know it without technology. As you can probably tell from my dialogue, I agree with the author. It makes entirely to much sense not to agree. If there were no technology, we would be just like every other animal in the circle of life, with some other predator ready to eat us. I also like his take on the difference between an engineer, scientist, technician, and craftsman. As an engineer, I take pride in not putting forth any manual labor and just using the brain. I didn’t mind this chapter, though like the rest, could of most definitely been summed up into a couple pages instead of twenty.

Philosophical Questioning of Technology

This chapter was relatively interesting to me in that the comparisons Mitcham chooses to make are intriguing. Although the first two pages, in which he compares science and technology to ideas, seems like a waste of time, the rest of the chapter is quite interesting. In those first pages, he compares science to ideas. Seriously, isn’t science entirely made up of theories and ideas? He then tries to argue that technology is not related to ideas because technological ideas and theories aren’t as prevalent as scientific ideas. That’s like saying hotdogs need mustard but not hamburgers because hot dogs are more prevalent.

He then chooses to go into the ideal of ethics, and how it relates to different ideas. Essentially, he takes things like the environment, nuclear technology, and computers, and relates the ethical issues we’ve already made towards the traditional “ethics and interpersonal behaviors” we’ve come to think.  All he’s doing during this part of the chapter is questioning where those ethics come from(aka humanity and ideas and science) and why they exist. I think the most interesting part is the nuclear ethics part where I’m not entirely sure which side he’s taken. He takes nuclear technology, an idea by scientists, and attempts to comment on the public disarray of nuclear programs around the world.

Finally, he questions the questions regarding technology. He essentially asks the readers a question, which is: Why ask questions about technology? The answer according to Mitcham is simple, and that is to slow the progression of technology. He makes himself to be almost a critic in that he defends questioning the very thing he’s been feeding us. He tells us that by questioning technology, we “immerse ourselves in philosophy.”

From Engineering to Humanities Philosophy

Chapter three was an interesting chapter in that it questioned the difference between humanities and the technology we already perceive. Mitcham described humanities and culture as a technology in its own definition. The fact that we as humans have different cultures makes us that much more human, thus being a technology different from the physical technologies we already know. He argued that technology is not just a physical tool used by humanity, but more that humanity itself is the engineer of technology. Seeing as the modern engineer creates things that make civilized life possible, it seems clear that humanities also create a more civilized environment. Its obvious that humanities are a technological building block because of Mitcham’s interpretation of the fact that engineering, and a civilized society are building blocks towards the definition of humanities. I enjoyed this chapter because Mitcham never lets you lose sight that an engineer and a humanist are two entirely different people, yet they share common ideals. I especially enjoyed the last page or two of the chapter when Mitcham quoted Socrates, and then discussed about it. So philosophical…Go figure

Political and Feminist Dimensions

This chapter was quite interesting in that it took a different point of view on the technological determinism topic. First off, she made it a hell of a lot easier to understand exactly what she was saying. The whole first part of the chapter was her defining what technology meant to her, and how it wasn’t just physical items. She also discussed how technology created problems that technology now has to solve. Like how its disputed that global warming is being caused by cars, a technology made back in the 20’s, and now we’re creating technology to be not only efficient, but earth friendly. She also goes on to talk about women’s place in technological advancements and how we would not be where we are without them. I believe women’s influence on technology can be measured to that of men, but the majority of inventors in the past were men. Its not that I’m trying to be sexist or anything, but it was just customary back then that women stayed home and men worked. Throughout most of the book, most authors argued that technological determinism was good for society or bad for society, but in this chapter, Williams almost seems like a peace maker because she really doesn’t take one side over the other. Instead she makes a case of her own, saying that language, and writing were the most important technologies of our time as opposed to more recent inventions that other authors argued. Peacemaker she may be in that she felt as though the ability to communicate with one another was the ultimate technology. I thought this chapter was a fresh new look at the way we look at technological determinism, and I enjoyed it. The ability to step out of the box and make your platform a feminist genre really speaks bounds to the character of this author, and I respect that.

Determinism and Pre-Industrial Technology

In this chapter Richard Bulliet gives us an initial question comparing pre-capitalist technology to the theory of capitalism in itself. Essentially what he’s trying to prove, is that economy is not the only driving force of technological change. By doing this, he gives us several examples of such technology and elaborates on each by discussing each example’s role in the unfolding of  history. He makes an example of  block printing, camels, and wheeled transportation. When one thinks of each of these technologies, you can’t help but think of how far each have come from their perspective beginnings. He describes these beginnings an how societies were affected by each of the technologies he lists. Bulliet makes the argument that without each of these technologies, our societies would not be the same as they are today. I for one entirely agree with the argument. What would happen without the wheel, or the domesticated animal, or even the evolution of printing? In the chapter, Bulliet essentially tells us that we as a society need technology to make history. without a printing press, we wouldn’t be able to even document it much less talk about it now. I liked this chapter in that its was easy to understand because he analyzed most of his points for his audience so it was easy to comprehend. Bulliet’s take on social change through technology is entirely feasible and makes sense.

Technological Determinism in Agrarian Societies

I liked this chapter and Peter Perdue’s take on technological determinism. It was refreshing getting to a chapter I didn’t mind reading. This chapter talks about the aspect of determinism that most won’t acknowledge and that is technological determinism before the industrial revolution or the 20^th century. Purdue wants us to go back centuries to see the kind of determinism they had. He starts off by claiming that limiting one self to solely determinism by technology negates human freedom and shouldn’t be brushed off quite so easily. He talks to us about the middle ages and their technology, the Chinese, the Russians as well as the single factor method. Both of these are far before our time and technological determinists pay them no mind, which is why I find his take so interesting. He doesn’t just talk about Europe or America as the sole technological manufacturers and I respect hat.  This is definitely not like the chapter before it. Its surprisingly simple to read and something that most would agree with.  I liked this one

Determinism and Indeterminacy in the History of Technology

???

Seriously, after reading the first couple pages of this work, I was completely lost. It seems as though Philip Scranton’s take on technological determinism is over my head completely. I’m going to need help with this one, because after struggling through this I’ve got nothing. I finally finished it and i thought to myself, ok what was that about so I can write my blog. Well all i can do is rant about how much I didn’t understand it.

So There

Retrieving Sociotechnical Change from Technological Determinism

When is this thing going to end? Seriously that’s what you’ll be asking yourself when you read Thomas Misa’s take on the technological affects on micro and macro levels of society. In the 26 page beast of a chapter, after filtering through examples that didn’t click what so ever, I came upon the conclusion that this entire piece was comparing technology on different levels of society. He describes macro, and how technology affects society as a whole. He them condenses his thoughts into the micro level of society, and defends, saying that this is the section where technological determinism truly affects.  Though he final finds a medium between the two and calls it the messo level of society and claims that this is the type of society we should live in. Quite honestly, I could care less. This author lost me at the second page in and none of his arguments could really stick with me. This chapter could have been well done had it been 5 pages of meaningful incite with examples, because I like where he’s coming from on the subject; But there is far too much information to comprehend and make an informed decision on the matter. This chapter was NOT fun.