Technology as Inquiry
Here's an interesting discussion of what technology is and is not - from a philosophical/epistemological perspective.
First - a letter to the editor critiquing an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education. Then a citation to the article itself, which has an impoverished and very common understanding of what computer technology is.
Text of Letter - Hickman, Larry A, Chronicle of Higher Education; 2/10/2006, Vol. 52 Issue 23, pB17-B18, 2p.
"TO THE EDITOR:
As someone who has followed the career of Vartan Gregorian with great admiration, I was more than a little surprised when I read his gloss on John Dewey's "mistaken" understanding of technology ("Grounding Technology in Both Science and Significance," Information Technology, December 9). Mr. Gregorian writes that Dewey "mistakenly believed that the impact of science and technology was limited to the 'outward' forms of our civilization." Moreover, he "did not see science and technology as having a transforming influence on our thoughts and purposes."
Quite the opposite is true. In the passage from Philosophy and Civilization that Mr. Gregorian cites, Dewey was merely complaining that the technosciences, as of 1931, had not sufficiently progressed in terms of their potential for service to humanity.
In "What I Believe," however, written the previous year, he described that potential. "'Technology,'" he wrote, "signifies all the intelligent techniques by which the energies of nature and man are directed and used in satisfaction of human needs; it cannot be limited to a few outer and comparatively mechanical forms. In the face of its possibilities, the traditional conception of experience is obsolete."
This remark distills Dewey's understanding of technology. First, it differentiates technology from mere tools and techniques: Technology is inquiry into tools and techniques in the same sense in which biology is inquiry into forms of life. Second, technology is not value free, but instead a means of ascertaining whether what is simply valued can be proven to be valuable.
Third, contrary to the position advanced by Mr. Gregorian, technology is not a "derivative" of science. The sciences are specialized forms of practice whose successes since the 17th century have been due to their systematic adoption of technology. Dewey thus provided a rich understanding of technology that has not so far been sufficiently understood or appropriated."
Next - the citation to the original article - Gregorian, Vartan. Chronicle of Higher Education; 12/9/2005, Vol. 52 Issue 16, pB3-B5, 3p. And a little commentary of my own.
This article is short and readable - and it presents the world wide web - and computers as the access point - simply in terms of providing information access. The author goes on to discuss the epistemological and social consequences of the increased access. He sees the influence that information access can have on knowledge production and exchange. But he doesn't see the value of increased information itself. In fact, he sees peril.
He displays a bias against "information" as somehow inferior to "knowledge". Information is crude oil, while knowledge is premium gasoline. Information is corn mash, while knowledge is fine sippin' whiskey. Information is second-class, mass-produced, cheap wal-mart stuff, while knowledge is Dolce and Gabbana all the way. This attitude is starting to get to me. It reminds me of people who know how to use a microwave, and because of that, think that's the limits of what you can do with heat.