Technology
10 Oct 18
11 Oct 18
@rwingett saidYes, but, don't you agree that Apple products have lately gone to crap?
Technology is not neutral. All technologies are embedded with a host of values that only manifest themselves upon the widespread adoption of that technology. They then serve to condition the way we view the world and exert an influence upon the choices we subsequently make.
@rwingett saidI think this is pretty much true and gave it a thumbs up to offset the haters. In particular, there is a trend now to let the tools of technology use us, rather than us using the tools.
Technology is not neutral. All technologies are embedded with a host of values that only manifest themselves upon the widespread adoption of that technology. They then serve to condition the way we view the world and exert an influence upon the choices we subsequently make.
12 Oct 18
3 edits
@rwingett
Where do you start? A blade? It can be a surgeon's scalpel, or a thug's murder weapon. The wheel? It can be used on a hey cart or a war chariot. Fire? It can cook your meat or start a forestfire. In most cases, technology is neutral; the intentions of the users determine whether technology is good or evil.
Of course, there are some exceptions. Biological weapons, for example, or hydrogen bombs. These were designed to be weapons of mass destruction.
12 Oct 18
@moonbus saidHis point is that the biases of the designer carry over into the actual design. I fail to see how this is controversial.
@rwingett
Where do you start? A blade? It can be a surgeon's scalpel, or a thug's murder weapon. The wheel? It can be used on a hey cart or a war chariot. Fire? It can cook your meat or start a forestfire. In most cases, technology is neutral; the intentions of the users determine whether technology is good or evil.
Of course, there are some exceptions. Biological weapons, for example, or hydrogen bombs. These were designed to be weapons of mass destruction.
17 Oct 18
@bigdoggproblem saidNo, my point is that technology forms the biases of the designer. The way we interact with the world, the things we think about, and even the way we think, are all conditioned by our technology.
His point is that the biases of the designer carry over into the actual design. I fail to see how this is controversial.
@moonbus saidThe values embedded within technology are those of hierarchy, centralization, specialization, and a general estrangement from nature. The more advanced the levels of technology a society adopts, the more those values will manifest themselves in that society. This is not something that is incidental to technology, nor could it turn out any other way. Every society that adopts advanced technology will exhibit an increased incidence of those values. Those values are therefore embedded within the technology itself, waiting to manifest themselves. Of course any technology seems neutral to an individual user, but upon the widespread adoption of technology by society, those values invariably manifest themselves within that society.
@rwingett
Where do you start? A blade? It can be a surgeon's scalpel, or a thug's murder weapon. The wheel? It can be used on a hey cart or a war chariot. Fire? It can cook your meat or start a forestfire. In most cases, technology is neutral; the intentions of the users determine whether technology is good or evil.
Of course, there are some exceptions. Biological weapons, for example, or hydrogen bombs. These were designed to be weapons of mass destruction.
17 Oct 18
@bigdoggproblem saidModern dentistry and hydrogen bombs are a package deal. You cannot have one without the other.
Don't get me wrong...I am a fan of Technology and the advancements it brings...I just think we should apply it from a base of good values.
17 Oct 18
@benjamin-barker saidI'm not sure. I'm not sure what the term (social construction of technology?) entails.
@rwingett
So this is the counter theory to SCOT?
18 Oct 18
@moonbus saidSo does this tech forum mean we can talk about power tools?
@rwingett
Where do you start? A blade? It can be a surgeon's scalpel, or a thug's murder weapon. The wheel? It can be used on a hey cart or a war chariot. Fire? It can cook your meat or start a forestfire. In most cases, technology is neutral; the intentions of the users determine whether technology is good or evil.
Of course, there are some exceptions. Biological weapons, for example, or hydrogen bombs. These were designed to be weapons of mass destruction.
18 Oct 18
@rwingett saidIt's a part of the field of social constructivism... the theory being that technology does not determine human action, but that rather, human action shapes technology. Therefor the way technology is used cannot be understood without understanding how it is embedded within its social context.
I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the term (social construction of technology?) entails.
@benjamin-barker saidI would take the opposite position, then. That technology determines, or at least heavily influences, human action. While human action undoubtedly shapes technology, it also works the other way, with technology shaping human action. The more immersive technology becomes, the more it tends toward the latter. As Henry David Thoreau said, "We have become the tools of our tools."
It's a part of the field of social constructivism... the theory being that technology does not determine human action, but that rather, human action shapes technology. Therefor the way technology is used cannot be understood without understanding how it is embedded within its social context.
18 Oct 18
@rwingett said🔥
I would take the opposite position, then. That technology determines, or at least heavily influences, human action. While human action undoubtedly shapes technology, it also works the other way, with technology shaping human action. The more immersive technology becomes, the more it tends toward the latter. As Henry David Thoreau said, "We have become the tools of our tools."