Joseph C. Pitt

This chapter is concerned with the impact technological innovation has on key concepts employed in developing an adequate epistemology. In particular, I look at the impact of three technologies of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, the theory and techniques of perspective the telescope, and the microscope, on our concept of observation. It is argued that the concept of a scientific observation is fundamental to a robust empiricist/pragmatist epistemology. A scientific observation differs from ordinary seeing by employing technologies that may or may not have a role in the ordinary world of common sense. It is further argued that these refinements take place over an extended period of time and thus require a bigger timeframe than is usually meant when people talk about technological and scientific change taking place in context. The notion of context is hopelessly confused and in its place I propose the concept of a problematic. A problematic is an historical phenomenon that covers the period of time it takes for new technologies to become embedded in social practices. The importance of seeing how technological innovations become standardized and accepted and produce new ways of developing knowledge undergirds the final idea introduced here: philosophical concepts and questions change over time; there are no perennial questions and answers, only constant change.

The future of philosophy is the philosophy of technology. It is argued that, using Wilfrid Sellars’ aim for philosophy as “seeing how things in the broadest possible sense hang together in the broadest possible sense”, contemporary philosophy is nothing more than a fragmented set of abstract and irrelevant activities. Philosophy, it is suggested should be about mankind interacting with the world, which is, on my account, the nature of technology. The role of philosophy should be to help us accomplish those interactions in a thoughtful and productive manner. The philosopher should be seen as part of a team of individuals seeking to accomplish something – she is a critical facilitator – Socrates reborn. To make philosophy a useful feature of the contemporary intellectual scene, we must disengage from minor analytic exercises that have little or no bearing on one another or the world and try to understand mankind interacting with the world, which would be to do philosophy of technology. To accomplish this goal I suggest that we reject the traditional taxonomy we appeal to when trying to make sense of philosophy. Instead of the old division of the field into Epistemology, Metaphysics, Value Theory, History of Philosophy, and Logic and Philosophy of Science, I urge that we first see the aim of philosophy to be assisting humankind to make their way in the world. The point is successful action. The traditional areas of philosophy and numerous subfields that don’t fit easily into the traditional taxonomy such as aesthetics, philosophy of law and philosophy of technology, are now seen as areas to appeal for assistance in achieving the proposed goal. Every area of philosophical interest should be appealed to as a tool, not as a specialized area of “research”.

Concerning evidence there are two important questions: (1) what is going to count as evidence? and (2) what are the appropriate means for employing evidence? These two problems pervade the analysis of the scientific process. They are with us as much today as in Galileo’s time. For example, with respect to contemporary arguments between Evolutionists and Scientific Creationists, if the issue is taken in its cognitive rather than its political dimension, the entire discussion turns on the criteria for acceptable, evidence, i.e, the heart of the problem is disagreement over the status of the data one wants to invoke as evidence.Many of the disputes between Galileo and his philosophical, interlocutors in his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems turn on some of the same issues that bedevil the debate between evolutionists and creationists, i.e., what is going to count as evidence?

The papers presented here derive from the 4th International Confe:--ence on History and Philosophy of Science held in Blacksburg, Virginia, U. S. A., November 2-6, 1982. The Conference was sponsored by the I nternational Union of History and Philosophy of Science and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Particular thanks go to L. Jonathan Cohen, Secretary of the Union, as well as to Dean Henry Bauer of the College of Arts & Sciences, Wilfred Jewkes and the Center for Programs in the Humanities, Arthur Donovan and the Center for the Study of Science in Society and the Department of Philoso­ phy and Religion at Virginia Tech. Not only did they come through with the necessat"y funds, but they were all always ready with a helping hand when things got confusing. Two additional groups of individuals require a special note of thanks. First, considerable appreciation is due the mem­ bers of the Joint Commission of the I nternational Union of History and Philosophy of Science: Maurice Crosland, Risto Hilpinen and Vladimir Kirsanov. They were more than gen­ erous in thei r advice and co-operation. The Local Organizing Committee (Kenneth Alpern, Roger Ariew, Arthur Donovan, Larry Laudan, Ann La Berge, Duncan Porter, Eleonore Stump and Dennis Welch) not only demon­ strated efficiency and insured a pleasant stay for' all participants, but also went out of their way on numerous occasions to make everyone feel at home.

Summary A sufficient condition for a revolution in physics is a change in the concept of cause. To demonstrate this, we examine three developments in physical theory. After informally characterizing a theory in terms of an heuristic and a set of equations, we show how tensions between these two dimensions lead to the development of alternative theoretical accounts. In each case the crucial move results in a refinement of our account of cause. All these refinements taken together result in the emergence of a new conceptual framework in which ‘causation’ is evolving in a manner unrelated to the common sense understanding of the concept

Focused on mapping out contemporary and future domains in philosophy of technology, this volume serves as an excellent, forward-looking resource in the field and in cognate areas of study. The 32 chapters, all of them appearing in print here for the first time, were written by both established scholars and fresh voices. They cover topics ranging from data discrimination and engineering design, to art and technology, space junk, and beyond. Spaces for the Future: A Companion to Philosophy of Technology is structured in six parts: Ethical Space and Experience; Political Space and Agency; Virtual Space and Property; Personal Space and Design; Inner Space and Environment; and Outer Space and Imagination. The organization maps out current and emerging spaces of activity in the field and anticipates the big issues that we soon will face.