Mariska Bosschaert

In the 1990s, various philosophers of technology shifted their focus from reflections on technology in general (Technology) to reflections on concrete technologies (technologies) and consequently lost sight of overarching issues such as climate change. However, proponents of the shift to concrete technologies rightly argue that concrete technologies need to be taken into account, as, for example, not all concrete technologies have the same climate impact. This argument raises the question of whether both approaches can be integrated to enable research on overarching issues without losing empirical grounding. In order to propose a framework that integrates both approaches, we will first elaborate on the proponents of both approaches. Subsequently, we will use the case of time measurement to explore how the approaches can complement each other. Based on this exploration, we will propose a framework on how to relate philosophical theories on technology in general and concrete technologies in an integrated way.

During the second half of the twentieth century, several philosophers of technology argued that their predecessors had reflected too abstractly and pessimistically on technology. In the view of these critics, one should study technologies empirically in order to fully understand them. They developed several strategies to empirically inform the philosophy of technology and called their new approach the empirical turn. However, they provide insufficient indications of what exactly is meant by empirical study in their work. This leads to the critical question of what counts as an empirically informed philosophy of technology in the empirical turn. In order to answer this question, we first elaborate on the problems that the empirical turn philosophers tried to address; secondly, we sketch their solutions, and, thirdly, we critically discuss their conceptions of empirical study. Our critical analysis of the empirical turn contributes to new efforts to engage in an empirically informed philosophy of technology.Keywords: Empirical turn · Philosophy of technology · Postphenomenology · Critical theory of technology · Analytical philosophy of technology.

In contemporary agriculture, the paramount challenge lies in feeding an ever-growing global population while concurrently mitigating the impacts of climate change. Over recent decades, precision agriculture has emerged as solution to this challenge, utilizing advanced technologies to monitor to the specific needs of individual plants and animals. Alongside these high expectations, several concerns have been raised regarding precision farming. These concerns span various kinds of social structures, including impacts on individual farmers and farming globally. Concerns that have received less attention so far are related to meta-physical structures. Meta-physical structures are foundational structures that pertain to how we understand and experience the world—what we take to be self-evident. For instance, how we automatically distinguish between crops and weeds, even though there is no inherent difference. There are strong indications that the focus of the farmer from direct observation to digital screens will change the farmer’s experience of fields, plants, and animals. Since this is about what we regard as self-evident, it is very difficult to reverse course once these structures have changed. Therefore, it is crucial to reflect on these structures early in the development of precision farming. Currently, there is no established method to relate meta-physical structures with concrete practices such as precision farming. Therefore, a method to reflect on meta-physical structures will be developed in this paper and applied to precision farming. The evolutionary perspective of Gilbert Simondon will be proposed as a basis for this method.

In the 1990s, various philosophers of technology shifted their focus from reflections on technology in general (Technology) to reflections on concrete technologies (technologies) and consequently lost sight of overarching issues such as climate change. However, proponents of the shift to concrete technologies rightly argue that concrete technologies need to be taken into account, as, for example, not all concrete technologies have the same climate impact. This argument raises the question of whether both approaches can be integrated to enable research on overarching issues without losing empirical grounding. In order to propose a framework that integrates both approaches, we will first elaborate on the proponents of both approaches. Subsequently, we will use the case of time measurement to explore how the approaches can complement each other. Based on this exploration, we will propose a framework on how to relate philosophical theories on technology in general and concrete technologies in an integrated way.

Abstract: In the 1990s, various philosophers of technology shifted their focus from reflections on technology in general (Technology) to reflections on concrete technolo- gies (technologies) and consequently lost sight of overarching issues such as climate change. However, proponents of the shift to concrete technologies rightly argue that concrete technologies need to be taken into account, as, for example, not all concrete technologies have the same climate impact. This argument raises the question of whether both approaches can be integrated to enable research on overarching issues without losing empirical grounding. In order to propose a framework that integrates both approaches, we will first elaborate on the proponents of both approaches. Subse- quently, we will use the case of time measurement to explore how the approaches can complement each other. Based on this exploration, we will propose a framework on how to relate philosophical theories on technology in general and concrete technolo- gies in an integrated way.

During the second half of the twentieth century, several philosophers of technology argued that their predecessors had reflected too abstractly and pessimistically on technology. In the view of these critics, one should study technologies empirically in order to fully understand them. They developed several strategies to empirically inform the philosophy of technology and called their new approach the empirical turn. However, they provide insufficient indications of what exactly is meant by empirical study in their work. This leads to the critical question of what counts as an empirically informed philosophy of technology in the empirical turn. In order to answer this question, we first elaborate on the problems that the empirical turn philosophers tried to address; secondly, we sketch their solutions, and, thirdly, we critically discuss their conceptions of empirical study. Our critical analysis of the empirical turn contributes to new efforts to engage in an empirically informed philosophy of technology.

During the second half of the twentieth century, several philosophers of technology argued that their predecessors had reflected too abstractly and pessimistically on technology. In the view of these critics, one should study technologies empirically in order to fully understand them. They developed several strategies to empirically inform the philosophy of technology and called their new approach the empirical turn. However, they provide insufficient indications of what exactly is meant by empirical study in their work. This leads to the critical question of what counts as an empirically informed philosophy of technology in the empirical turn. In order to answer this question, we first elaborate on the problems that the empirical turn philosophers tried to address; secondly, we sketch their solutions, and, thirdly, we critically discuss their conceptions of empirical study. Our critical analysis of the empirical turn contributes to new efforts to engage in an empirically informed philosophy of technology.