As you begin reading this book and annotating the statements and ideas in it, think about your own educational progress. See how any of your experiences resonate or contrast with what is put forth in this book.

This is a test

bad grammar!

The box for this text is too small. Bottom of last line is cut.

This would be a good page to have images of students in the background. We might have some interesting images of the Language Commons...

• General graphics principles dictate not centering blocks of paragraph text unless there is a reason to do so.
• I may also re-write some of this text to highlight the two ways Digication can be accessed: through the User Dashboard and within a Collab Site.
• ePPC in "...meet withone of our ePPC" shoudl be linked to the Studdents section

Good job

test

nice sound bite

-- How does awareness of the history and philosophy of technology fram our relationship to technology? -- Where do you think you will be with regard to this issue 3-5 (maybe 10) years from now ? -- What else?

This chapter is taken from a book by Frederick Ferre entitled Philosophy of Technology. There will, therefore, be references here to concepts discussed earlier in the book. Two other terms that come from elsewhere in the book at "the Reason of Ulysses" and "the Reason of Plato" which are explained below where they appear. Parallel to those two concepts are two other concepts "practical reasoning" and "theoretical reasoning".

This is a provocative statement. But it is also all true. Sometimes without even knowing it, our ePortfolio programs end up serving administrative purposes only. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Why is this a misinterpretation?

How was Darwin's theory misinterpreted?

Blame humans themselves for the messiness of their world. The universe itself was highly ordered...

In what sense did it work and what were the limits within which it worked?

What does he mean by "true results"?

Is this what he meant by "mathematics"?

How can this be?

What is "pragmatism"?

Why would he want to do this?

Who was he?

Who was he?

Who was he?

Who was he?

Who was he?

See here for description of the book...

This is a tough one to follow, but shows interesting shifts in perspective between East and West.

This paragraph lays out White's argument succinctly.

Lynn White was a well known and controversial American social historian.

This map sets the stage:

White is using the iconography (art) of that time to prove his point. See here...

We get a succinct definition of Benz's thesis here. We also get it's refutation. What's wrong with Benz's thesis?

Why?

What is Benz's thesis?

A German theologian (1929-1978) See here...

This is a significant break from the way things were "invented" in the past. Notice the distinction between "inventing" and "making"

So, the Middle Ages have been responsible for the world all the way up to the 1950s -- when the African and Asian colonies began to gain their independence.

Then the Franks perfect their warfare...

This is not questioned. That period went through an incredible revolution of technology that we still feel today.

Remember the criticism of White we saw in Marquit? Other scholars have been critical of some of White's statements. Do you remember what Marquit pointed to as a problem in White?

White sets the objectives of his essay here. He does not just want to provide us with facts about the Medieval era, but explanations, too. He admits that it's not easy, that one has to build up to one's conclusions through careful interpretation. But he is confident that there will be "gradual illumination." So now we know what to expect to be in this essay... or do we?

Here is Paula Freebird's Summary and Response to David Nye's essay, "Can we Define Technology"

. . .

Paula Freebird “Can We Define Technology?” by David Nye February 4, 2018

Summary

For this week's summary and response I have chosen to write about three themes in David Nye's essay: 1) tools and stories/language, 2) evolution of the word "technology'', and 3) technology and gender. Ney develops a unique theory about technology when he discusses how stories are almost "built in" tools. What does he mean by that? First, he compares the structure of stories — a situation, an encountered problem, a solution — to the structure in the invention of a tool. Whether by accident, or through planning, a tool comes into being when a problem is recognized within a situation, the solution is visualized, and then the tool is used. For Nye, thought process we go through when we invent, encounter, or use a tool involves the same thought process we go when we create stories. However, even if the structures are that same, Nye does not want us to think that we 'read" stories and tools in the same way. When we 'read' a tool we are in it and with it, using it in a practical way. Textual stories, on the other hand, are abstract, removed, and theoretical.

The evolution of the word "technology'', according to Nye, begins with the Greek word "techne". While the Greeks did not appreciate the manual work implied in the activity of "techne" (in other words, using tools for work) they nevertheless had a word for activity itself. The word seems to have disappeared for many centuries after the Greeks and only appears in the early 1800s (in the very early Industrial period) to refer, much like the Greeks, to specific skills (like "glassmaking" etc.) — or even more specifically to books (—logy) written about specific arts. In other words, the "technology of glassmaking" would refer to a book written about glassmaking.) As the Industrial period develops, Nye goes on to say, the word "only gradually came into circulation to the point where in the nineteenth century, institutions (like the Massachusetts institute of Technology) began to adopt the term. Broader use of the terms technologie and iechnikl in Germany led to their translation into the English technics in the twentieth century. Technology then becomes part of the professional definition of engineers. In a digression of the definition of the term, Lewis Mumford used the terms eotechnic, paleotechnic, and neotechnic to describe a chronology of technological development. While these terms are not used anymore, the word technology goes through several transformations in the twentieth century leading Nye to complain that "the meaning of "technology" remained unstable in the second half of the twentieth century, when it evolved into an annoyingly vague abstraction." Nye finally concludes that the word has finally stabilized to become "a comprehensive term for complex systems of machines and techniques."

Nye only touches on the relationship between technology and gender towards the end of the essay. He acknowledges that, while Mumford contributed a lot to our thinking about technology, he (and presumably all other thinkers about technology at that time) "missed ... how thoroughly "technology" was shaped by gender." Nye backtracks to the medieval era to point out how deeply women were involved with trade and gives us examples, such as the making of ale, as being thoroughly controlled by women. It is only in the modern period that our perception of technology changes. Nye cites Ruth Oldenziel argument that Western society only relatively recently defined the word "technology" as masculine."

Response

Since the guiding question of this course is: “How does awareness of the history and philosophy of technology frame our relationship to technology?" I will focus my response to answering this question in relation to how I see my own thinking changing. It's only the beginning of the course, and this is only the first essay; still, i think the changing of my thinking might have already begun.

Regarding tools and stories, I am not sure whether I believe it or not. It seems to me to be a hit far¬fetched. I think Nye wants to somehow connect “language" with "tool making" — perhaps because he wants to show both as being deeply human traits. But I can't see any "story" in a tool. Even at the end of his argument, he says we don't read textual stories and tools in the same way. Of course. That's exactly what I mean. Maybe I can say I "use" stories (like to put my kids to sleep) the way I "use' a tool. Still, it is curious to me that this kind of far-fetched thinking can come up in the course of discussing technology. In that sense, my thinking about how technology “frames[s] our}my] relationship to technology" is being affected. While I do not have to accept everything I read, I have to think about it and try to say as clearly as I can "why” I do not accept it.

The historical evolution of the word "technology" brings to my mind a connection between "practice" and "theory". Practice is, well, practical. I don't need to know the name of the tool I am using to be able to use it. So, the fact that people (except for the Greeks who were —there is no other way, to say it — lazy because they had slaves) would not care about coming up with word like techne does not surprise me. They were busy using the tools. This makes me think the modern return to developing the word (technologie, technik, technique, technology, tech, etc.) may be part of a theorizing process we are in (lazy like the Greeks, I don't know...). Anyway, this relationship between practice and theory is probably a very important thing for me to think about in relation to my relationship to technology.

The topic of gender and technology, however, is really changing the way I think about technology. I don't have much to say about it right now (Nye does not give us much). But, hard as it may seem to believe, it seems to me to be critical to our understanding of technology. I’ll say this, until we figure out this relationship, we may never be able to get out of the technological quagmire we find ourselves in. There, I said it. It's a stab in the dark, but I think I will have more to say on this as I continue reading.

Interesting to note that Smith in the modern world is connecting technology to art the way the Greeks did in teh word "techne".

Why?

What does this mean? Understanding Feenberg means being able to explain this point.

There's the word again (relating to the question of existence).

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does any thing exist? Another word for the philosophy that deals with this question is ontology.

VIP This is the foundation of Western philosophy: Plato's Allegory of the Cave

...so, this distinction is harder (less obvious) than the previous one.

VIP OK. Here is where the two pairs of words (the two basic distinctions) come into relation with each other. It gets complicated, but not difficult. This is what you have to grasp in this article.

VIP This is what he explains and what you need to understand carefully.

He is acknowledging his Japance audience here...

VIP What does this mean? It's a pretty big claim.

VIP You need to also be able to explain this distinction.

VIP You need to be able to explain this distinction.

Yes, technology is a big question. Remember Nye's attempt to define it. Martin Heidegger's famous book is also entitled The Question Concerning Technology.

Feenberg begins the speech with a discussion of contemporary philosophy of technology. We are skipping that here to look at what he says about the philosophy of Ancient Greece. Later, we will come back to the beginning of the speech as well as to the end where he comes back to modern philosophy of technology.

Andrew Feenberg gave this lecture to undergraduate students in Komaba, Japan. That is why there are references to Japan and Asia in the essay

Andrew Feenberg is a philosopher of technology at the Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

Date to notice...

Why is this important? See definition...

This is an important difference, and perhaps a significant evolution in civilization. What is the significance in the difference between practical and theoretical intellectual activity?

This is the height of practical mathematics in the world of ancient civilization. (Note: it is practical, not theoretical mathematics.)

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

Date to notice...

What are the implications of this? How believable is is? And if it is true, how is this characteristic reflected in our modern society -- if at all?

The biological components that may have led to tool making may be questionable. Still, there is evidence to back it up. Can you think of any aspect of technology use today that is tied to biological development -- for example, diseases that we are more prone to contract because of our technology? Any others?

Right off the bat, Marquit lays out the three ways of looking at the relationship between technological and societal development. Philosophy of technology discussions seem to always oscillate between these three views -- typically the third. Later, we will see other ways of viewing the arguments.

It might surprise you to know that, along with being a physicist, Marquit also belonged to the Communist Party USA. Check out his bio on Wikipedia.

Here is a link to some information about the author and his publications. David E. Nye

Herman Melville's dates area 1819 - 1891 Herman Melville Foundation

So, if there is a relationship between science and technology, it is more likely that technology creates something first, and science explains it later.

Of course, as Nye says further down, "...science has played a similar role in the refinement of many technologies..." so, there is a relationship, but it is more complex than just saying technology is the handmaid of science.

What do you think about this statement? Do you agree with it? Explain.

Interesting comparison between technologists and artists...

Terminology is very important. What is the evolution of teh word "technology" from the Greeks to the present? you might also think about what the word means to you today. One student a few years ago argued that technology refers only to "computers" and computer like things like "smart-phones". That's a very narrow view.

Benjamin Franklin: 1706 - 1790 Here is a documentary about Franklin.

Please add the dates of any notable names and events in the article -- if it has not be added already, or if you think what has been added is not correct.

Can someone give the dates for each of the names referenced in this paragraph? I think Nye jumps around a lot and it would be good to track what he's saying by looking at the dates. (It's a good idea to give dates for any names or events that you see in this article -- if someone has not done so already.)

This looks like a "which came first" statement. What do you imagine when you think "pre-literate"? What do you imagine when you think "pre-technological"?

Tools as stories! That's an exciting idea. What does this mean, and what more can be said about this

This is a page level comment. In other words, the comment refers to the whole document and not a specifically highlighted area. I just wanted to say that this chapter is from Nye's book Technology matters: Questions to live with (MIT Press, 2007). This introductory chapter gives us an overview of the subject of technology from both a historical and philosophical perspective. As you read the article and annotate it, please think of your own perspective on technology and how it changes throughout the course.

I will also annotate the text pointing to specific areas of interest. Some of my annotations will be questions, or pointers to other areas.

Before I annotated this article I printed it out and marked it up to get me started. I find it easier to read on paper than on the screen. But that may be just me. You need to find the best way you work.

1934 - Also, here is video of a chimp using a tool it created.

noun 1. (italics) the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans belong, characterized by a brain capacity averaging 1400 cc (85 cubic in.) and by dependence upon language and the creation and utilization of complex tools. Dictionary.com

Jose Ortega y Gasset: 1893 - 1955

In other words, we can't say that a technology was created for doing this or that only. Most of what our technological artifacts are used for is discovered after the tool has been created. What does this mean?

Many, if not all, animals construct things. but only humans, and intelligent apes, construct "tools". What do we mean by "tools."

This document cannot be annotated because it is a an image-b ased .pdf file. You can, however, comment on the whole document using the New Page Note tool.

This document cannot be annotated because it is a an image-b ased .pdf file. You can, however, comment on the whole document using the New Page Note tool.

It is common for people to think that technology is merely "applied science." When examined closely, however, we see that the relationship is not that simple.

We do see a lot of this. In Marginalia Jackson draws the contrast between what he refers to as "book use" and "book abuse"... In other words, simple highlighting is a more rudimentary annotation skill, whereas the ability to extend the highlighted idea into other areas indicates critical inquiry.

What is the relationship between critical inquiry and annotations skill?

This is a video and it cannot be annotated by Hypothesis the way text can. But it is not hard to just put page level comments.

...actually, a while back several years.

This is an older version of my ePortfolio. I do like the muted colors.

With the Chrome browser, you can add the annotator as a plug in. This allows it to come up anytime an annotated page appears in your Chrome browser. In effect, you have to install it once and that's it.

This is just a prototype for OAT. The Hypothes.is tool is not completely integrated yet. Once it is, it will be connected by default to assignments that need to be annotate. Other material, such as instructional documents will not trigger the annotation tool. We hope to get there in the second round of product development.

My name is Yitna Firdyiwek. I am the instructor of this course. Click here to find out more about me.

What do you think of this opening statement? Do you agree with it? If not, why not? What parts do you not agree with? If you do agree with it, what would you add to it?

Mindfulness and technology is a very interesting topic. What would it mean to be mindful in relation to technology? Also, how does it apply to the one creating the technology vs the one using it? These are some of the questions we will discuss as we annotate the article.

I am thinking of using this article in a course on the history and philosophy of technology.

lkjlkj;l

Why this reference to white population? Was there any other assumption possible?

Very interesting ...

test annotation...

The course description was created after analysis through the "intentionality" lens of our Design Collaborative in which I reviewed the larger curricular context of the course as well as the specific pedagogy I decided to choose..