A number of the explorations of understanding questions within the know-how & technology unit of ToK start with the question: “pet + write for us properly, what do we mean by using generation ?”. So, I idea it might be beneficial to put together a blog which summarises 4 major tactics to how we will think of generation in its relationship with know-how.
These processes are very a great deal umbrella techniques – they are rough best kinds to help us to discover that dating among tech and knowledge, don’t forget the focal point is on know-how, no longer tech.
The “tech is a tool” method.
The argument right here is pretty simply that generation is a device that we use to resolve human problems. That is apparent whilst we look at cutting-edge technologies along with the internet, cars, the printing press etc. It then also will become obvious when we do not forget technologies from pre-industrial era which includes smelting metals, wattle and daub and so on.
This method fast takes us into non-bodily technology which includes mathematics is a technology which allowed us to resolve Building Green Business the problem of navigation through map-making, artwork is a era which allows us to clear up issues of expression and social cohesion and many others. Arguably, language is the final era which lets in for all other technological (& therefore expertise) innovation. This technique has been nicely defined in the books by using Yuval Noah Harari (particularly Sapiens: A short history of Humankind).
Most of the many writers who have taken the “tech is device” technique are Plato and Rousseau who both argued that technology had a as an alternative bad impact on understanding and humanity. In Phaedrus Plato argued that that the use of writing had a bad effect on people’s capability to do not forget and think critically. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, wrote approximately the risks of technological progress in his work “Discourse on Inequality.” He argued that the development of era had brought about the development of personal belongings, which had in flip led to social inequality.
Then again, Francis publisher 1st baron verulam and Karl Marx, are writers who, in taking the “tech is device” technique see technology as a tremendous gain to the pursuit of information, and the development of humanity. 1st baron beaverbrook noticed science and era as being a unmarried unified entity. He argued that technology turned into the excellent way to find popular ordered truths from the disordered chaos of nature. Marx saw era as a means by means of which proletarian labour (& bourgeois extraction of it) is quantified, and therefore is a vital stage for the realisation of socialism. As such, Marx became advantageous about the have an effect on of technology on the pursuit of know-how.
I suppose that this technique is implied, and assumed, in the understanding questions blanketed within the ToK look at manual for know-how and era. This method can be all this is required of the ToK learner. But,
But, there are a few issues with this approach, concerns which are each widespread for us as newcomers, and precise to ToK:
Did these troubles, which technology apparently solves, come before the era or did technology create those troubles ? (the trouble here is considered one of causation – what is the cause of an item ?)
If the troubles are antecedent to the technology, and generation is the answer to them, then are generation and know-how honestly separate entities ?
If technology and know-how are intertwined then is there any non-technological expertise ?
Wider ontological problems arising from the above – if know-how is a needful for lifestyles, then is era also a needful for our existence ? Are we described by solving troubles ? Is focus basically a task focussed manner (Heidegger).
Concerns #1 & #2 quite simply segue into our 2nd method.
The “some information is tech” approach.
This technique argues that the information which gives upward push to the era advanced to remedy the problems that we face is in itself era. Information including language (incl. Virtual coding languages), faith, clinical theories, creative arrangement etc all give upward push to specific technologies which help us to resolve a set of issues.
In this technique we begin to apprehend generation as a hard and fast of practices as opposed to merely as a set of items. Each the object (artifact) and the practices (techniques) are seen as being technology. The object itself is probably termed “instrumentality” as it changed into produced to (instrumentally) exchange the environment – ie to solve a problem. The practices which added the artifact into being might be termed “productivity” as they gave us an object which, at some point, gave us multiplied manipulate of our surroundings for a required purpose. The effect of this categorisation on the purchase and manufacturing of expertise can be explored in greater detail in subsequent blogs.
This approach also opens the door to a consideration of the social environment inside which needs get up, and knowledge develops in order to meet the ones desires. Of direction, this brings a sharp attention on what we define as ‘wishes’, and who has the attendant strength to remedy that which they outline as ‘wishes’ (a quick sub-question: a number of generation serves ‘development’ – is improvement fulfilment of a ‘need’ ?). And again, we’ve large issues of causation right here – what’s the order of causation ? Is causation a important, or merely, enough requirement for the purchase and production of knowledge ? Etc
Overall, this approach additionally poses some of challenges for our idea of knowledge:
Is the era causal to the information or vice versa ? (think about examples – this is more problematic than it first appears).
Both information and generation can be idea of as evolutionary (and every now and then innovative) – does information motive era to conform, or vice versa ? , and in that case, how ?
Will we produce a few understanding which is not to solve troubles ? , and if so what, and why ?
A number of ontological questions springing up from #three: are we entirely a trouble solving being ? What approximately non-trouble fixing behaviours ? (do they even exist in this definition?). Is focus contingent on
Task #three readily segues into our subsequent technique.
