Alfred Nordmann

The word "technology" in the modern understanding became the subject of wide discussion only at the second part of the XX th century. Today technology is considered as ontologically distinct, no longer a dependent process but a special phenomenon. It encompasses many meanings from different discourses, the word is used as self-evident, and is employed in a wide variety of contexts, sometimes with widely divergent implications. In order to reveal the ontological heterogeneity of this concept, we consider it in three layers or levels of being: the subject-object level where technology breaks up into many objects, practices and knowledge, presented phenomenologically and closely related to various areas of scientific activity; the social level where technology permeates society as a network, system and power, a web of influences and relationships that shape the technological environment in which people exist; and the metaphysical level where technology is seen as the fate of humankind. Technology turns out to be the cornerstone of modernity, entering into a dialectical contradiction with nature and culture, and is considered as the driving force of civilizational development.

The idea of God is one of the most pervasive in human culture. It used to be considered mostly in metaphysical and ethical discussions, it has become a part of the discourse in the philosophy of technology. The metaphor of God is used by some authors to represent the role of artificial intelligence in the modern world. This paper explores four aspects of the metaphor: creation, omniscience, mystery, theodicy. The creative act shows the resemblance of humans to God, also in the sense that technology created by humans can get out of the control of the creator. The ability of AI to use data flows for analytics and prediction is considered as “omniscience” which looks mysterious due to the inability of people to intellectually grasp the work of AI. The discussion about building ethics into AI technology shows a desire to add one more feature to “omniscient and omnipotent,” namely “benevolent.” The metaphor of God as applied to AI reveals human fears and aspirations both in rational-pragmatic and symbolic terms. The metaphor of God exposes notions of transcendence in modern perceptions of technology. Also it continues the discussion about what should be the technological design of AI. Whether as co-worker or as communicator it is already putting us on a path towards thinking of a subject that is constituted in a superior way.

Technology is changing the world and becoming the world itself. The technical work as a world becomes a scheme that accommodates people and things in a seamless manner as they work together in an unforced manner. In generic terms, the relation of works and worlds, and the corresponding experience of a technical world is established with reference to Ludwig Wittgenstein. The practical and metaphorical example is the incubator for premature babies, which creates a safe atmosphere for the life of the newborn. The incubator represents a technically created world that becomes a protective «shell». The early adoption of digital technologies by children is also partly due to the desire of parents for safety and quiet. The success of early introduction to mobile devices relies greatly on new technological devices with touchscreens and visual interfaces. In the digital world, small children have much more power, agency, autonomy, the ability to change the environment, and at the same time have fun. Modern children enter the digital world at almost the same time as the physical world. They cannot distinguish digital and the physical worlds according to a criterion of reality. The convenient world of technology built by adults becomes a shell or even a trap for children that is perceived by them as a natural and necessary part of the world. Children perception becomes magical: they are affected by magic seduction of the touchscreen, which recomposes a reality that is interrupted, suspended, and returns it as modified, technicized.

The editorial discusses perspectives for a hermeneutics of science and technology. It begins by appreciating the original antagonism between hermeneutics and science, between hermeneutics and technology. While the former signifies the struggle to establish the purity, transparency, and objectivity of science, the latter concerns the symbolic dimension of technology as well as practices of sense-making in human interactions with technology. And while the antagonism of hermeneutics and science persists, the latter can be dissolved by treating technical works on a par with artworks. If there is a hermeneutic of science and not just a hermeneutic historiography or philosophical reconstruction of science, it can be found in the technical process of modeling as a mutual attunement of theory and reality by way of the model as mediator or hermeneutic device. This conclusion for the hermeneutics of science leads on to conceptions of a hermeneutics of technical works, including models as material compositions that establish what can be done in the fields of theory and practice. – From among the twelve papers in this special issue, a first group of papers struggles with and against the „original antagonism“ of science and hermeneutics, while the second group offers perspectives for a hermeneutics of technical works.

This book presents the proceedings of the 24th International Conference Professional Culture of the Specialist of the Future. Professionals and experts in all fields need to be prepared to handle unfamiliar situations. Some of these are unexpected events that may occur quite suddenly out of the blue, and others may emerge in the course of technological development or predicted trends. In order to successfully confront the future, professionals therefore need to engage in hypothetical thinking as they entertain concrete scenarios or fictitious possibilities. Scientists and engineers lead the way when they employ thought experiments and systematically consider alternative realities. Educators come up with creative approaches to foster the “art of the as-if.” This highly interdisciplinary collection of 50 papers discusses the theoretical challenge of hypothetical thinking and presents practical strategies for its promotion.

Die Nanotechnologie wollte von Anfang an ganz unbedingt ethisch ernstgenommen werden. Diese Form des Ernstnehmens sollte ihr zur Glaubwürdigkeit verhelfen und tat es auch. Somit unterstützt ein großer Teil der öffentlich nachgefragten Nanoethik eine rhetorische Figur, die sich auch jetzt noch als Fehlschluss erweisen könnte: Schon weil die ethischen Implikationen der Nanotechnologie diskutiert werden, muss es sich bei ihr um ein äußerst vielversprechendes und folgenreiches Forschungsprogramm handeln.

The philosophy of science and the philosophy of technology share the same fate. The experimental turn in philosophy of science and the empirical turn in philosophy of technology open the black boxes of explanatory models and technical systems, and consider the creation of phenomena and artefacts. And yet, technology is viewed through the lens of science, subservient to or derivative of representation and the relation of mind and world. The philosophy of technoscience and an epistemology of working knowledge introduce a technological turn that affords a view of research as technological practice, both in science and in engineering.

Multilingualism as a (sub)-discipline of linguistics with special interest in language acquisition and didactics was established in the 1990s. As time moved on, the discipline of multilingualism evolved into an interdisciplinary field of research, but not yet including a philosophy of multilingualism. In this record of a conversation between linguist Britta Hufeisen and philosopher Alfred Nordmann, the concept of multilingualism is explored as well as its differences to monolingualism. This implies differences also between the philosophy of language and a philosophy of multilingualism. Upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that multilingualism is not only about language acquisition anymore but about the ways in which individuals can make themselves understood and orient themselves in a multilingual environment which includes artificial languages. In this way, the notion of affordances comes to the fore as individuals are afforded by their environment the use different language skills in different situations. The same applies to technology: Technology always affords us to do something in a specific way, but at the same time, while using it, we discover other possible uses and thus assign new meanings to it. This is where the linguist and the philosophic view diverge: The former puts an emphasis on the use of language and the actual semantic meaning of words, whereas the latter analyzes language and technology primarily in terms of its use, therefore meaning becomes a product of use. Both stress, however, the importance of culture and context for meaning and use.

For better and worse, the future is often conceived in technological terms. Technology is supposed to meet the challenge of climate change or resource depletion. And when one asks about the world in 20 or 100 years, answers typically revolve around AI, genome editing, or geoengineering. There is great demand to speculate about the future of work, the future of mobility, Industry 4.0, and Humanity 2.0. The humanities and social sciences, science studies, and technology assessment respond to this demand but need to seek out a responsible way of taking the future into account. This collection of papers, interviews, debates grew out of disagreements about technological futures, speculative ethics, plausible scenarios, anticipatory governance, and proactionary and precautionary approaches. It proposes Hermeneutic Technology Assessment as a way of understanding ourselves through our ways of envisioning the future. At the same time, a hermeneutic understanding of technological projects and prototypes allows for normative assessments of their promises. Is the future an object of design? This question can bring together and divide policy makers, STS scholars, social theorists, and philosophers of history, and it will interest also the scientists and engineers who labor under the demand to deliver that future.

In this article, I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs. This article is followed up by Commentaries of Carl Mitcham, Alfred Nordmann, Sabina Leonelli, Lukas Fuchs, Monica Edwards-Schachter

This discussion paper proposes that a meaningful distinction between science and technoscience can be found at the level of the objects of research. Both notions intermingle in the attitudes, intentions, programs and projects of researchers and research institutions—that is, on the side of the subjects of research. But the difference between science and technoscience becomes more explicit when research results are presented in particular settings and when the objects of research are exhibited for the specific interest they hold. When an experiment is presented as scientific evidence which confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis, this agrees with traditional conceptions of science. When organic molecules are presented for their capacity to serve individually as electric wires that carry surprisingly large currents, this would be a hallmark of technoscience. Accordingly, we propose research on the ontology of research objects. The focus on the character and significance of research objects makes this a specifically philosophical project.

Problem: Visions of technology, future scenarios, guiding visions represent imaginations of future states of affairs that play a functional role in processes of technological research, development and innovation—e.g. as a means to create attention, communication, coordination, or for the strategic exertion of influence. Since a couple of years there is a growing attention for such imaginations of futures in politics, the economy, research and the civil society. This trend concerns technology assessment as an observer of these processes and a consultant on the implications of technology and innovation. TA faces increasing demands to assess imaginations of futures that circulate in the present and to participate in shaping these through scenarios or foresights. More than ever, this raises the question, which propositions can be made based on these imaginations by TA and how this can be used in advisory practices. Imaginations of futures are relevant for TA not as predictions but in their significance and effectiveness in the present, which need to be understood and assessed.Contents: This discussion paper outlines how present significance and effects of imagined futures in technological research and innovation processes can be conceived and analyzed. In this paper, all forms of imaginations of technology futures will be called “socio-technical futures” because within them technological developments and social changes are interwoven and inseparably interrelated. In this paper, we discuss why TA should analyze socio-technical futures, how such analyses can grasp the societal conditions that are expressed in the imagined futures and how these become effective in processes of technology development, communication, decision making etc. We raise the question which self-reflexive positioning or possible realignment of TA is needed as a response to its increased concern with assessing and even co-producing socio-technical futures. The latter is often demanded regarding the growing attention by politics and publics to imaginations of futures with wide temporal and spatial reach.Addressee of this paper is the TA community in a broader sense. The aim is to sensitize colleagues for the topic and its challenges, to consolidate discussions and to provide theoretical and methodical suggestions for research in TA and related advisory practices with respect to socio-technical futures. This paper has been originally initiated during the workshop “The present of technological futures-theoretical and methodical challenges for Technology Assessment”, in which all of the paper’s authors participated. The contents of this discussion paper are preliminary results that shall initiate and guide further discussions.

Indikatoren sind in Prozessen des Monitorings in allen gesellschaftlich relevanten Bereichen sowie in Prozessen der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Entscheidungsfindung von der lokalen Ebene bis zur internationalen Governance unverzichtbar geworden. Überall in der öffentlichen und medialen Kommunikation begegnen sie uns und rechtfertigen die Wahl zwischen unterschiedlichen Optionen. Doch was zeigen uns diese Indikatoren eigentlich genau an, worin beruht ihre Relevanz, was sind ihre Stärken, was aber auch ihre prinzipiellen Grenzen? Können sie die Komplexität einzelner Sachverhalte wirklich auf das Relevante reduzieren - oder verkomplizieren sie Probleme noch weiter? Stellen sie unsere Entscheidungen auf sichere Füße - oder wiegen sie uns lediglich in der Illusion von Objektivität? Das Buch leuchtet in kurzen Fallstudien die jeweiligen Grundlagen der Erstellung von Indikatoren, aber auch ihrer Verwendung und der Ergebnisinterpretation aus und betont Leistungen, aber auch Fallstricke und Fehlannahmen. Zudem versucht es zur besseren Orientierung auf diesem unübersichtlichen Gebiet auf möglichst verbindliche Weise in das verwendete Fachvokabular einzuführen. Die Herausgebenden Julia Mörtel promoviert im Fachbereich Philosophie der Technischen Universität Darmstadt und arbeitet als Unternehmensberaterin für strategisches Qualitätsmanagement. Prof. Dr. Alfred Nordmann lehrt Philosophie und Geschichte der Wissenschaften und der Technowissenschaften an der Technischen Universität Darmstadt. Dr. Oliver Schlaudt hat eine Heisenberg-Professur für Philosophie und politische Ökonomie an der Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung in Koblenz inne.

This article scrutinizes in detail much of the extant historiography on the controversy between biometricians and Mendelians, considering in particular how this controversy is related to the evolutionary synthesis. While the historiographic critique concentrates on William Provine’s standard account, it also extends to the proposal by Donald MacKenzie and Barry Barnes. What Provine and these sociologists of scientific knowledge have in common is a set of unquestioned assumptions about the nature of Darwinism, about William Bateson’s anti-Darwinism, and about the very idea of an evolutionary “synthesis.” While these assumptions make for a compelling history of the synthesis, they engender an endemically asymmetrical perspective and bias historiography toward the mere confirmation of antecedent expectations, which renders the years from 1859 to 1929 an age of ignorance and misunderstanding. In contrast, a return to what was probably the original meaning of evolutionary “synthesis” allows for a symmetrical account. It yields an appreciation of the positive contributions made both by Mendelians and biometricians to the gradual development of Darwinism. The article concludes with a synopsis of this alternative account.

This collection offers a new understanding of the epistemology of measurement. The interdisciplinary volume explores how measurements are produced, for example, in astronomy and seismology, in studies of human sexuality and ecology, in brain imaging and intelligence testing. It considers photography as a measurement technology and Henry David Thoreau's poetic measures as closing the gap between mind and world. By focusing on measurements as the hard-won results of conceptual as well as technical operations the authors of the book no longer presuppose that measurement is always and exclusively a means of representing some feature of a target object or entity. Measurement also provides knowledge about the degree to which things have been standardized or harmonized – it is an indicator of how closely human practices are attuned to each other and the world.

What kind of stuff is the world made of? What is the nature or substance of things? These are ontological questions, and they are usually answered with respect to the objects of science. The objects of technoscience tell a different story that concerns the power, promise and potential of things - not what they are but what they can be. Seventeen scholars from history and philosophy of science, epistemology, social anthropology, cultural studies and ethics each explore a research object in its technological setting, ranging from carbon to cardboard, from arctic ice cores to nuclear waste, from wetlands to GMO seeds, from fuel cells to the great Pacific garbage patch. Together they offer fascinating stories and novel analytic concepts, all the while opening up a space for reflecting on the specific character of technoscientific objects. With their promise of sustainable innovation and a technologically transformed future, these objects are highly charged with values and design expectations. By clarifying their mode of existence, we are learning to come to terms more generally with the furniture of the technoscientific world - where, for example, the 'dead matter' of classical physics is becoming the 'smart material' of emerging and converging technologies.

Die Nanotechnologie wollte von Anfang an ganz unbedingt ethisch ernstgenommen werden. Diese Form des Ernstnehmens sollte ihr zur Glaubwürdigkeit verhelfen und tat es auch. Somit unterstützt ein großer Teil der öffentlich nachgefragten Nanoethik eine rhetorische Figur, die sich auch jetzt noch als Fehlschluss erweisen könnte: Schon weil die ethischen Implikationen der Nanotechnologie diskutiert werden, muss es sich bei ihr um ein äußerst vielversprechendes und folgenreiches Forschungsprogramm handeln.