82,891
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 15:55, 28 December 2018
, 28 December 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{review|The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves|Brian Arthur|R1R7JT2AG50IFT|7 July 2010|Thoughtful entry on an under-explored topic}} | {{review|The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves|Brian Arthur|R1R7JT2AG50IFT|7 July 2010|Thoughtful entry on an under-explored topic}} | ||
{{author|Brian Arthur}}’s treatise is somewhat ponderous in its beginning (and in truth, throughout) but all the same is most encouraging in its [[Epistemology|epistemological]] disposition — assuming as it does the recursivity of society and technology, rather than toting the (conventional) view that one is strictly a product of the other. This points you towards a path-dependent model for not just technology, but society and indeed knowledge itself. | {{author|Brian Arthur}}’s treatise is somewhat ponderous in its beginning (and in truth, throughout) but all the same is most encouraging in its [[Epistemology|epistemological]] disposition — assuming as it does the recursivity of society and technology, rather than toting the (conventional) view that one is strictly a product of the other. This points you towards a [[path-dependent]] model for not just technology, but society and indeed knowledge itself. | ||
But for some, this is dangerous stuff. It leads in turn to uncomfortable conclusions and opens the door to all that crazy post-modern stuff. | But for some, this is dangerous stuff. It leads in turn to uncomfortable conclusions and opens the door to all that crazy post-modern stuff. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:''Combination [of existing technologies] cannot be the only mechanism behind technology's evolution. If it were, modern technologies such as radar or magnetic resource imaging ... would be created out of bow-drills and pottery firing techniques, or whatever else we deem to have existed at the start of technological time.'' | :''Combination [of existing technologies] cannot be the only mechanism behind technology's evolution. If it were, modern technologies such as radar or magnetic resource imaging ... would be created out of bow-drills and pottery firing techniques, or whatever else we deem to have existed at the start of technological time.'' | ||
The problem is how to account for the “onward” development of technology. Arthur is clear that it is path-dependent (“had we uncovered phenomena over historical times in a different sequence, we would have developed different technologies”) but even this insight, I think, risks under-cooking the importance of the {{tag|narrative}} conversation: it is not just that combinations of technologies through time let us develop existing theories and give us better and more powerful and enabling answers to our original questions; they prompt completely ''new'' questions: they afford ''new'' ways of looking at the world. New ways of looking generate new opportunities, and new problems. | The problem is how to account for the “onward” development of technology. Arthur is clear that it is [[path-dependent]] (“had we uncovered phenomena over historical times in a different sequence, we would have developed different technologies”) but even this insight, I think, risks under-cooking the importance of the {{tag|narrative}} conversation: it is not just that combinations of technologies through time let us develop existing theories and give us better and more powerful and enabling answers to our original questions; they prompt completely ''new'' questions: they afford ''new'' ways of looking at the world. New ways of looking generate new opportunities, and new problems. | ||
This is a significant point. | This is a significant point. | ||