83,022
edits
The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves: Difference between revisions
The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves (view source)
Revision as of 19:22, 29 December 2020
, 29 December 2020Amwelladmin moved page The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves - Book Review to The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves - Book Review to The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{review| | {{a|book review|}}{{author|Brian Arthur}}’s treatise is a little ponderous but, all the same, is most encouraging in its [[Epistemology|philosophical]] disposition — assuming as it does the “recursivity” of society and technology, rather than holding the (usual) view that one is strictly a product of the other. This is a [[path-dependent]] model for not just {{t|technology}}, but society and even knowledge itself. | ||
{{author|Brian Arthur}}’s treatise is a little ponderous but, all the same, is most encouraging in its [[Epistemology|philosophical]] disposition — assuming as it does the “recursivity” of society and technology, rather than holding the (usual) view that one is strictly a product of the other. This is a [[path-dependent]] model for not just {{t|technology}}, but society and even knowledge itself. | |||
But for some, this is dangerous stuff. It opens the door to all that crazy post-modern stuff. | But for some, this is dangerous stuff. It opens the door to all that crazy post-modern stuff. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
As he goes on, Arthur keeps in mind two “side issues” that constantly recur in writings about technology: the analogy to [[Charles Darwin - Author|Darwin]]’s program of {{tag|evolution}}, on one hand, and the analogy to [[Kuhn]]’s theory of scientific revolution on the other. But these are only different articulations of the same idea: that “questions” and “answers” (whether you characterise these as “environmental features” and “biological adaptations which evolve to deal with them”, or “observational conundrums” and “scientific theories which purport to explain them”) are, to a large extent, interdependent: something is only a conundrum if it appears to contradict the prevailing group of theories. What both [[Darwin]] and [[Kuhn]] suggest is that “linear progress”, insofar as it implies a predetermined goal to which an evolutionary algorithm is progressing, is a misconceived idea. Evolutionary development is better characterised as a move ''away'' from the status quo, rather than a move ''toward'' something evidently “better” anything (in hindsight, both will seem the same; to confuse them is a fundamental error). | As he goes on, Arthur keeps in mind two “side issues” that constantly recur in writings about technology: the analogy to [[Charles Darwin - Author|Darwin]]’s program of {{tag|evolution}}, on one hand, and the analogy to [[Kuhn]]’s theory of scientific revolution on the other. But these are only different articulations of the same idea: that “questions” and “answers” (whether you characterise these as “environmental features” and “biological adaptations which evolve to deal with them”, or “observational conundrums” and “scientific theories which purport to explain them”) are, to a large extent, interdependent: something is only a conundrum if it appears to contradict the prevailing group of theories. What both [[Darwin]] and [[Kuhn]] suggest is that “linear progress”, insofar as it implies a predetermined goal to which an evolutionary algorithm is progressing, is a misconceived idea. Evolutionary development is better characterised as a move ''away'' from the status quo, rather than a move ''toward'' something evidently “better” anything (in hindsight, both will seem the same; to confuse them is a fundamental error). | ||
Yet, and while Arthur clearly recognises this, he continues to frame his explanatory theory in terms of “forward progress”, as if that is the “conundrum” to be solved. Even our traditional conception of it has this the wrong way round: “the invention of the jet engine” | Yet, and while Arthur clearly recognises this, he continues to frame his explanatory theory in terms of “forward progress”, as if that is the “conundrum” to be solved. Even our traditional conception of it has this the wrong way round: “the invention of the jet engine” wasn’t what was going on; it was “finding a way to fly in thinner air”. The jet engine was the first solution arrived at that met that purpose (as, in a totally different context, {{author|Richard Susskind}} elegantly points out, when you shop for a Black & Decker, it isn’t a drill you want; it’s a hole). Technology (and science, and biology) isn’t an end, it’s a means. The more ''means'' you have, the more ''ends'' are available to you. | ||
I had therefore wondered whether Arthur had missed a trick in his account: the fact that any novel solution to an old problem creates ''new questions'' that we did not think — or need — to ask previously. But as he closes, by viewing technology through the prism of the economy (contending the two are independent; the former is not merely the handmaiden of the latter), he nails this, too: | I had therefore wondered whether Arthur had missed a trick in his account: the fact that any novel solution to an old problem creates ''new questions'' that we did not think — or need — to ask previously. But as he closes, by viewing technology through the prism of the economy (contending the two are independent; the former is not merely the handmaiden of the latter), he nails this, too: | ||
| Line 30: | Line 29: | ||
Recognising that the special sauce in technology is, for the time being at least, the bit supplied by the [[meatware]], is a comforting thought. | Recognising that the special sauce in technology is, for the time being at least, the bit supplied by the [[meatware]], is a comforting thought. | ||
{{c|Technology}} | {{c|Technology}} | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Taxonomy]] | *[[Taxonomy]] | ||