lectures 1-9 history and philosophy of science and technology

7/18/2019 Lectures 1-9 History and Philosophy of Science and Technology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lectures-1-9-history-and-philosophy-of-science-and-technology 1/59

Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen, Professor & Chair, Philosophy, [email protected]

Fall 2011

1

mailto:[email protected]






Methodology and epistemology of Science: What is scientific method ? What counts as scientific knowledge?

Does science discover truths? Are its discoveries certain?

How to choose between competing theories? What is the relationship between theories, hypotheses, evidence

and experiments?

Metaphysics of Science: Are all events, scientific phenomena etc. determined by causes? What is a scientific law ? Is there a purpose in nature?

Can other theories be reduced to some others (e.g., to physics)?

Are some theories more fundamental than others?

2



What does technology mean (as related to science)? Can technology be defined? (Knowledge + material +

organisation + product)

Can science be divided into ’pure’ and ’applied’ parts?

How did technologies emerge? Do they necessarily grow out of scientific discoveries?

Do some characteristics typify Western technologies?

What were/are the impacts of technology to nature,

environment, society, culture, politics, our long-term

future...?

3



Science (scientia) ”natural philosophy” until at least themodern period; ”natural sciences” emerged only later

The Scientific Revolution (~1500-1700)

”Scientific method” articulated only in late 19th century – butinseparable from the entire history of science

The term ”scientist” relatively new (Whewell, 1833)

4

For Aristotle, science was the study

of drawing inferences, given thepremises that are known(deduction, syllogism)

Reason, argument and experiment

have always been important...



Suppose (as Aristotle believed) that the heavier a body is, thefaster it falls to the ground and suppose we have two bodies, aheavy one called M and a light one called m. Under our initialassumption M will fall faster than m. Now suppose that M and

m are joined together thus M+m. Now what happens? WellM+m is heavier than M so by our initial assumption it shouldfall faster than M alone. But in the joined body M+m, m and Mwill each tend to fall just as fast as before they were joined, so

m will act as a ‘brake’ on M and M+m will fall slower than Malone. Hence it follows from our initial assumption that M+mwill fall both faster and slower than M alone. Since this isabsurd our initial assumption must be false.

5



All philosophers are strangeJohn is strangeTherefore, John is a philosopher

6000 people died as a result of drinking last year.

4000 people died as a result of driving last year.500 people died as a result of drink driving last year.Therefore, Drink driving is safer than either drinking or driving alone.

Nothing is better than freedom.On the other hand, Prison life is better than nothing.Therefore, Prison life is better than freedom.

To build a large thing, you need a plan.To make a plan, you need a written language.Neolithic British had no written language.Therefore, Aliens from outer space built Stonehenge.

6



1. On the concept of technology

1. Definitions of technology

2. Some history3. The issue of technological determinism

2. On the method & logic of science

1. ”The Fixation of Beliefs” (Peirce)2. Scientific reasoning

8



Means quite a different bag of issues to a scientist, engineer,business executive, politician, attorney, reporter, artist,...

Not just hardware or inventions

Technology is knowledge, expertise, ’soft tech’, solutions & services

Some attempted definitions (Misa 2009, p.8-, in Companion):

1. ”Things that fulfill our needs and desires or perform certainfunctions”

2. ”Application of understanding of natural laws to the solution ofpractical problems”

3. ”Information concerning processes and design”

4. ”Information needed to achieve a certain production outcome”

9



Not merely a neutral production factor

knowledge – technique – organisation – product

Knowledge transfer crucial to meaningfultechnology

Knowledge is explicit and implicit/tacit ; depends ontruths, beliefs, desires, goals,...)

Technology is contextual

10



Name of

Product

From

Invention to

Application

Duration Name of Product

From

Invention to

Application

Duration

Steamer 1680~1780 100 Aircraft 1897~1911 14

Electromotor 1829~1886 57 Television 1922~1934 12

Telephone 1820~1876 56 Atom 1939~1945 6

WirelessCommunication 1867~1902 35 Transistor 1948~1953 5

Vacuum tube 1882~1915 33 Integrated circuit 1958~1961 3

Electric Vehicle 1868~1895 27 Laser Machine 1960 1



The term ”technology” quite youngBigelow, Elements of Technology , 1829:“Under this title it is attempted to include . . . an account . . . of theprinciples, processes, and nomenclatures of the more conspicuous arts,

particularly those which involve applications of science, and which may beconsidered useful, by promoting the benefit of society, together with theemolument of those who pursue them.”

(Before this the word was rather the ’techniques’)“Technology, in the present century and almost under our eyes . . . hasadvanced with greater strides than any other agent of civilization, and has

done more than any science to enlarge the boundaries of profitableknowledge, to extend the dominion of mankind over nature, to economizeand utilize both labor and time, and thus to add indefinitely to the effectiveand available length of human existence.”

The founding of the MIT (1861), the polytechnics etc.

13



How does technology bring about changesin history?1. Does technology develop autonomously?

2. Is it a key factor for

societal and culturaldevelopments?

14



How we form conceptions To acquire information we need reasoning, which is a way to transfer

from what we know to something not yet known

The formation and fixation of beliefs (conceptions) is interactionbetween to states of mind, doubt and belief

Mind responds to the irritation, caused by the actions of thought,which gives rise to doubt. Doubt stimulates inquiry (research) untilcessation by a formation of a conception.

How we revise beliefs1. Method of Tenacity (We don’t! Just live a happy life...)

2. Method of Authority (Institutionalised revision)

3. A priori –method (Revise according to what is ’reasonable’)

4. The Scientific Method. 15

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html



1. Fallibilism: Many good ideas are probably true, but wecannot be absolutely sure of any one of them.

2. The Final Opinion: Science can reach a single opinion

agreed upon by all scientists. 3. ‘In the Long Run’ : If inquiry were to be pursued indefinitely

long, the final opinion would be reached.

4. Scientific Attitude: No sham reasoning, fake reasoning.

5. Structure of Scientific Inquiry : Abduction, deduction,induction.

6. The Economy of Research: Prefer simple, explanatory and productive hypotheses.

16



1. Deduction:

M is P All the beans in this bag are whiteS is M These beans in my hand are from this bagS is (necessarily) P These beans in my hand are white.

2. Induction:

S1, S2, S3,... are M These beans in my hand are from this bagS1, S2, S3,... are P These beans in my hand are whiteAny M is (probably) P All the beans in this bag are white.

3. Abduction:M is P1, P2, P3,... All the beans in this bag are whiteS is P1, P2, P3,... These beans in my hand are whiteS is (plausibly) M These beans in my hand are from this bag.

17



1. The surprising fact, C, is observed2. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course 3. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.

Abduction seeks a hypothesis to account for facts by guessing

“Oftenest even a well-prepared mind guesses wrong. But themodicum of success of our guesses far exceeds that of randomluck, and seems born of attunement to nature by instinctsdeveloped or inherent, especially insofar as best guesses areoptimally plausible and simple in the sense of the ‘facile andnatural’, as by Galileo’s natural light of reason.” (Peirce)

18



19

Hypothetico-Deductive Model of Science



Often expressed as the process by which scientists decide, basedon observations and experiments, that some theory, principle orlaw is true (”All A’s are B’s”).

The Problem of Induction How to generalise from finite information?

Is it a threat to scientific knowledge (scepticism)?

Possible reply: Falsificationism (Sir Karl Popper) Science does not in fact rest on induction

First: come up with a hypothesis or a theory , and then see if it stands up to atest:

▪ If tests prove negative, theory is falsified

▪ If tests fit the theory, continue to uphold it as undefeated.

Scientific inference is refutation: Some A is not B→ not: All A’s are B’s.

20



Some questions about falsificationism:1. If scientific theories are conjectural hypotheses that cannot be

proved by observation and evidence, what makes science better ormore trustworthy than, say, superstition or religious beliefs?

Popper: Theories are falsifiable:▪ They are formulated in precise terms, give definite predictions▪ In contrast, nothing can refute something like astrology or folk beliefs.

Falsifiability distinguishes science from non-science(Popper’s answer to the problem of demarcation):▪ In science you should be able to say beforehand, what observational

discoveries would make you to change your mind about your theory ifsuch evidence were to arise in the future ( fallibilism: we might bemistaken about out knowledge ’one by one’, but no scepticism follows)

▪ If no possible, conceivable observation can adjust our thinking, we arenot doing science but are dogmatists about our beliefs.

21



2. Falsificationism does not solve (it rather evades) the ’problem ofinduction’

What shows that a scientific theory is right? What is the rational basis for believing that the predictions that a theory

makes are right? What is the role of past evidence? We don’t believe in new theories immediately, they start out as

hypotheses.

Do we need to try to solve it?1. Yes: Bayesianism▪ Beliefs come in degrees in which we take something to be probable (these tend to

be subjective probabilities)

▪ Amounts to rational belief revision

2. No: Induction is a natural form of reasoning – accept abduction andinduction as facts of mind.

Why do rational thinkers expect future to be like the past?

22

Pr( / )Pr( / ) Pr( ) (Bayes Formula)Pr( )

E H H E H

E



Theorem: Reductio ad absurdum (RAA) is not a good method ofproof.Proof : by Reductio ad absurdum.

1. Suppose RAA were a good method of proof.2. Then this argument would be good.3. But this argument is no good.Therefore, RAA is not a good method of proof.

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2Ahttp://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/videos/CrossfireIntelligentDesign.swf http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

23

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

http://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/videos/CrossfireIntelligentDesign.swf

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

http://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/videos/CrossfireIntelligentDesign.swf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html



“10 Unsolved Mysteries”, Scientific American 10/2011

1. How Did Life Begin?

2. How Do Molecules Form?3. How Does the Environment Influence Our Genes?4. How Does the Brain Think and Form Memories?5. How Many Elements Exist?6. Can Computers Be Made Out of Carbon?

7. How Do We Tap More Solar Energy?8. What Is the Best Way to Make Biofuels?9. Can We Devise New Ways to Create Drugs?10. Can We Continuously Monitor Our Own Chemistry?

24

http://comdig.unam.mx/resource.php?source1=Scientific+American

http://comdig.unam.mx/resource.php?source1=Scientific+American



”Technoscience”: Scientific & technological progress nolonger due to separate enterprises

Is there any ”applied science” at all?

Perhaps technology is older than science Science has become ”instrumentally embodied”, instruments are

not merely tools but parts of the the theories & necessaryconditions for the experiments & influencing the interpretations

Maybe science has no ”foundations” – but – this need not imply

any recourse to the ’postmodern’ Now: Sociology of Science (STS, social constructionism) vs.

practice-oriented Philosophy of Science

Hacking, Ian (1983). Representing and Intervening (CambridgeUP) ; (2000)The Social Construction of What? (Harvard UP)

25



26

“Anyone who believes that the laws



Alan Sokal, 1996: ”Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward theTransformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, Social Text .

The point was not only to show problems with the journal’s peer reviewpractices, but to defend the standards of scientific & philosophical work from

the threats of “postmodern literary intellectuals pontificating on science andits philosophy and making a complete bungle of both.”

Check out Sokal’s new book: Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophyand Culture, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Explains the original ’joke’ sentence by sentence

Contains an ”Afterword” that was rejected by the Social Text “on the groundsthat it did not meet their intellectual standards”.

27

Anyone who believes that the lawsof physics are mere socialconventions is invited to trytransgressing those conventionsfrom the windows of myapartment. I live on the 21st floor.”



The philosophical basis of the ‘interplay model’:

1. External influences on a practice are results of theinteraction between practices. This interaction is

seldom a one-way influence; the practices involvedare changed in the interaction.

2. There are no hierarchically dominant practices in astrict sense.

3. Innovation in practices does not derive from scientificdiscovery, as it were in a linear sequence.

(Gremmen 2009, in Companion, p.76)

28



“The world is full of wonderful products and services thatoccasionally disappoint and even harm us. This book exploresthe reasons these failures occur, examining them from

technological, human, and organizational perspectives. Usingmore than 40 recent catastrophic events to illustrate its points,the book discusses structural and machine failure, but also theoften-overlooked failure of people and of systems related toinformation technology, healthcare, and security. Faulty

technology played a surprisingly small part in many of thescrutinized disasters, but cognitive factors andorganizational dynamics, including ethics, are majorcontributors to most unexpected and catastrophic failures.”

29



Engineering science vs. ’ordinary’ science?

1. ’make things work’ vs. ’seek for the truth’ ?

▪

Pragmatism: truth is what ’works’; what has pragmatic,practical, experiental effects (importance of modelling,design)

2. Study the nature and behaviour of human products

(artifacts) vs. study the natural phenomena?▪ Constructivism: also ’natural’ phenomena is a human

product

30



1. The nature of artifacts Homo faber : Artifacts depend on human manipulation;

contrast with objects of nature

Abiotic or not?▪ Domestication; GM; Bioinformatics; Nanotechnology

Materiality?

Artifact only if its ”author accepts it as satisfying some sortaldescription [for technological artifacts: ”material means y toachieve practical end x” ] included in his productive intention”(Hilpinen 2004)

Artifacts→Tools→ Instruments (Dipert 1993)

31



32



2. Knowledge of artifacts in technology

Descriptive knowledge of the science of the

behaviour of artifacts (e.g., laws of analyticmechanics governing snooker balls)

Normative knowledge of the use and application

of artifacts (”These tools are good for X”) – the

design aspect→ The descriptive knowledge of science becomes

transformed into something inventional

33



Engineering design“is the process of devising a system, component, or

process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-makingprocess (often iterative), in which the basic science

and mathematics and engineering sciences areapplied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective.”(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, ABET)

Conversion from functions to structures – but exactly how?

Use science & reasoning from means to ends; maybe like abduction? Not only instrumental task but social, economic, political,...

How to bring in the environment (know-how transfer)?

How to measure the success of the design? The list of criteria

may change during the design process ,or be part of it. 34



35



36



37



38



39



Engineering knowledge involves:

Design concepts (basic components); criteria & specs;theoretical tools (computation); data; practical/economic

considerations; design instruments (Vincenti 1990).Faulkner (1994): knowledge of the world; of practices; of thesystem of R&D; of end products; and of finding something new(innovations).

And the major failures are typically caused by design failures...

http://engineeringfailures.org/

40

An expert is a man who hasmade all the mistakes whichcan be made in a very narrow

field.” – Niels Bohr






How do we know about unobservable things?(Electromagnetic waves, viruses, electrons, quarks,...)

1. Realists take observable facts sufficient to indirectly infer theexistence of unobservable things.

In addition to making predictions, theories explain phenomena

’No miracles’-argument: realism the only philosophy that doesn’t makeprogress of science a miracle.

2. Instrumentalists think theories about unobservables areuseful tools for calculations and predictions but not abouttheir truths.

Scientists postulate all kinds of things but need not believe in them.

’Pessimistic meta-induction’: most past theories turned out false, whyshould I believe science?

41



Life: Information processes and neg-entropy

Self-sustainability, growth, replication, adaptation

Communication,signalling

42



What have been the major contributions to the rapidsocio-economic development in the West?

1. Institutions, the Rule of Law

2. Property Rights, Patents, Standardisations

3. Modern Medicine

4. Work Ethics (now obsolete?!)

5. Competition & Consumerism, mass-production & themass people (fading?)

6. The Scientific/Industrial Revolution

43



Compass, gunpowder, paper, printing were Chinese inventions,but did they revolutionize the society as in the West?

What is characteristically Western in development oftechnology?

Mechanisation: materials → production→ consumers

Large-scale capitalisation & finance & banking

Trust in science; Investment in R&D

‘Destructive’ applications & testing

Were in conflict with non-imperialistic Confucian values?

Preconditions for full-fledged scientific/industrial revolution?

Innovations in methods of communication

16th century book printing with diagrams & illustrations

Spread of analytic geometry…

44



What is information? The evolution of ICT:

1. Recording technologies (prehistory→ 19th century→)1. Writing systems, written records, non-biological memory

2. Mechanical reproduction (printing)3. Universal language projects(17th century→)

2. Communicational functions (1837→)1. Telegraphs

2. Cinema, radio, telephone, television (mass media)

3. Processual (elaborative) functions (1950→)1. Computation, the computer

2. the Internet

3. Mobile communication

Intelligent data, Information repositories,…

45



What is computation? Digital construction of the

‘real world’ Transformation of all information into the global

infosphere (Floridi 2009, in Companion):

The whole system of media containing all the data, text,multimedia, images, art, sounds, memories, etc. that haveever been there, without any limitation

Future ICT not about controlling the extant mechanisms butabout the creation and generation of new virtual models Imaging & simulation technologies

The problem of very long-term information preservation

46



The Two Cultures?



The Maastricht Treaty:“The absence of certainties, given the current state ofscientific and technological knowledge, must not delay the

adoption of effective and proportionate preventivemeasures aimed at forestalling a risk of grave andirreversible damage to the environment at an economicallyacceptable cost.”

Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration:“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reasonfor postponing cost-effective measures to preventenvironmental degradation.”

48



Implications:1. To understand it we need to understand the nature

of (i) potential for irreversible harm (‘risks’) and (ii)

scientific uncertainties2. Is a normative principle (favours environmental and

human health factors over others)

3. Refers to reasons for action, is not a guide or a recipe

for what action to take4. Applies in all contexts (technology, policy making,

governance, international law, trade,…)

49



Risk analysis and technological assessment

Basic problem: the lack of knowledge about the effects oftechnology

Too often treated separately

What is risk?1. Something unwelcome may or may not occur:

“Smoking is a big health risk”

2. Probability of unwelcome event: (decision-making underuncertainty or under risk, gambling):

“How likely it is that an expensive treatment will fail”3. Severity measure (expectation value) obtained by multiplying the

probability of unwelcome event with a measure of its disvalue(risk analysis):

“Is nuclear energy ‘better’ than fossil fuels”

Risk: there is something we know about what we do not know 50



Either there is a Christian God or there isn’t. Supposeyou believe in His existence and live a Christian life.Then, if He does exist you will enjoy eternal bliss and

if He doesn’t exist you will lose very little. But supposeyou don’t believe in His existence and don’t live aChristian life. If He doesn’t exist you will lose nothing,but if He does exist you will suffer eternal damnation!

So it is rational and prudent to believe in God’sexistence and to live a Christian life.

Or is it?

51



Are our daily risks getting higher or lower?

Life expectancy is growing, but on the other hand

there are new possibilities of large-scale global risks

Is technology assessment an optimisationproblem?

In new and emerging technology assessment (such

as in NBIC-technologies), risk analysis happensunder fundamental uncertainty : we do not evenknow the possible effects, let alone their

probabilities (the ‘tuxedo fallacy’)52



We cannot predict future technologies1. Fundamental uncertainty in the behaviour of

technologies; the list of device failures can never beknown to be completed

2. Behaviour of users unpredictable‘The Volvo Effect’

3. The emergence of new social, cultural and economicpatterns inherently unpredictable

Telephone, mobile comm., social networking4. Technology part of complex systems that behave

chaoticallyMarkets, societies, ecosystems,...

53



1. Safety engineering:1. Primary prevention (hazard elimination)

2. Safety barriers

3. Safety factors+ Copes with uncertainties and not only risks

- May become a safety risk itself…

2. Scenario and contingency planning

3. Participatory TA → Issues of the risks of technological future

inseparable from social, personal and cultural issues;risk is one factor among many in decision making.

54



55

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.2. Achieve universal primary education.3. Promote gender equality and empower women.4. Reduce child mortality.5. Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality

rate.

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.7. Ensure environmental sustainability.8. Develop a global partnership for development.



Static or evolving conception of humancivilisation? ‘Transhumanism’, ’singleton world leader’,

superintelligence (Boström 2009) The simulation argument: either1. nearly all human-level civilizations go extinct before

becoming posthuman, or2. any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to

run a significant number of simulations of theirevolutionary history, or

3. we are almost certainly living in a computersimulation (Boström 2009)

56

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU



57








Hist. & Phil. Tech.:

History and Technology (Taylor & Francis)

Philosophy & Technology (Springer)

Information Sciences (Elsevier)

Science, Technology and Human Values (Sage) Techne: Society for Philosphy and Technology (Virginia Tech UP)

Technology and Culture (Johns Hopkins UP)

Hist. & Phil. Science:

ISIS (U. Chicago Press)

History of Science Science in Context (Cambridge UP)

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A,B,C (Elsevier)

Philosophy of Science (Phi.Science Association)

Int. Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Taylor & Francis)

58



Faulkner, W. (1994). “Conceptualizing Knowledge Used in Innovation: ASecond Look at the Science–Technology Distinction and IndustrialInnovation,” Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(4): 425–58.

Hacking, Ian (1983). Representing and Intervening , Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hacking, Ian (2000). The Social Construction of What? , Harvard: HarvardUniversity Press. Hilpinen, R. (1993). “Authors and Artifacts”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian

Society , 93: 155–178. Hilpinen, R. (2004). “Artifact,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall

2004 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/artifact

Olsen, J. K. B., Pedersen, S. A. and Hendriks, V. F. (eds.), (2009). A Companionto the Philosophy of Technology , Blackwell Companions to Philosophy,Singapore: Blackwell Publishing.

Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What Engineers Know and How They Know It,Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

lectures 1-9 history and philosophy of science and technology

Documents