نسخه متنی مقاله

رابطه‌ علم و فناوری: طرح و نقد الگوی \"فناوری به مثابه علم کاربردی\"

اطلاعات مقاله:
نویسندگان:
  • سعيد زيباکلام

  • مهدی احمدی

اطلاعات تماس:
  • سعيد زيباکلام

    Affiliation:
    آدرس محل کار:
    تلفن محل کار:
    فکس:
    پست الکترونیک:
  • مهدی احمدی

    Affiliation:
    آدرس محل کار:
    تلفن محل کار:
    فکس:
    پست الکترونیک:
متن:

در اين مقاله يکی از مهمترين الگوهای رابطه‌ علم و فناوری، با عنوان «فناوری به مثابه علم کاربردي» به لحاظ فلسفی و تاريخی طرح و نقد شده است. ابتدا ريشه‌های فکری اين الگو تا انديشه‌های فرانسيس بيکن و رنه دکارت دنبال شده و سپس دفاع ماريو بانج، يکی از اولين فيلسوفان تحليلی فناوری، از آن آموزه بازسازی شده است. در انتقاد از اين انديشه ابتدا نگرش‌های پسامدرن به جايگاه و رابطه‌ علم و فناوری مطرح شده که مطابق با آن فناوری در دوره‌ پسامدرن بر همه چيز از جمله علم تفوق دارد. سپس انتقادات تاريخ‌نگاران فناوری ارائه شده که در آن نشان داده می‌شود که رابطه‌ علم و فناوری به گواهی تاريخ مطابق با الگوی مذکور نبوده است. در انتها نيز به برخی پيامدهای اين انتقادات بر سياست‌گذاری علم و فناوری اشاره می‌شود.

Science-Technology Relationship: Reconstruction and Critique of “Technology as Applied Science” Model AWT-SEP رابطه‌ علم و فناوری: طرح و نقد الگوی "فناوری به مثابه علم کاربردی" AWT-SEP In this paper one of the most important models of science-technology relationship, named “technology-as-applied science” is critically considered from philosophical and historical point of view. At first, some ideas of Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes are reviewed as the philosophical roots of that model, and then Mario Bunge’s elaborated defense of the model is reconstructed. For criticism, firstly the ideological perspective of post-modern thought about the position and relationship of science and technology is considered according to which in the post-modern era technology has primacy over everything including science. Secondly, strong critiques of technology historians are reviewed in which they undeniably showed that the history of science and technology relationship does not accord with the model. Finally some implications of those critical arguments for science and technology policy are pointed out. AWT-SEP در اين مقاله يکی از مهمترين الگوهای رابطه‌ علم و فناوری، با عنوان «فناوری به مثابه علم کاربردي» به لحاظ فلسفی و تاريخی طرح و نقد شده است. ابتدا ريشه‌های فکری اين الگو تا انديشه‌های فرانسيس بيکن و رنه دکارت دنبال شده و سپس دفاع ماريو بانج، يکی از اولين فيلسوفان تحليلی فناوری، از آن آموزه بازسازی شده است. در انتقاد از اين انديشه ابتدا نگرش‌های پسامدرن به جايگاه و رابطه‌ علم و فناوری مطرح شده که مطابق با آن فناوری در دوره‌ پسامدرن بر همه چيز از جمله علم تفوق دارد. سپس انتقادات تاريخ‌نگاران فناوری ارائه شده که در آن نشان داده می‌شود که رابطه‌ علم و فناوری به گواهی تاريخ مطابق با الگوی مذکور نبوده است. در انتها نيز به برخی پيامدهای اين انتقادات بر سياست‌گذاری علم و فناوری اشاره می‌شود. AWT-SEP مهدی احمدی سعيد زيباکلام AWT-SEP $Science-Technology Relationship: Reconstruction and Critique of “Technology as Applied Science” Model AWT-SEP رابطه‌ علم و فناوری: طرح و نقد الگوی "فناوری به مثابه علم کاربردی" AWT-SEP In this paper one of the most important models of science-technology relationship, named “technology-as-applied science” is critically considered from philosophical and historical point of view. At first, some ideas of Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes are reviewed as the philosophical roots of that model, and then Mario Bunge’s elaborated defense of the model is reconstructed. For criticism, firstly the ideological perspective of post-modern thought about the position and relationship of science and technology is considered according to which in the post-modern era technology has primacy over everything including science. Secondly, strong critiques of technology historians are reviewed in which they undeniably showed that the history of science and technology relationship does not accord with the model. Finally some implications of those critical arguments for science and technology policy are pointed out. AWT-SEP در اين مقاله يکی از مهمترين الگوهای رابطه‌ علم و فناوری، با عنوان «فناوری به مثابه علم کاربردي» به لحاظ فلسفی و تاريخی طرح و نقد شده است. ابتدا ريشه‌های فکری اين الگو تا انديشه‌های فرانسيس بيکن و رنه دکارت دنبال شده و سپس دفاع ماريو بانج، يکی از اولين فيلسوفان تحليلی فناوری، از آن آموزه بازسازی شده است. در انتقاد از اين انديشه ابتدا نگرش‌های پسامدرن به جايگاه و رابطه‌ علم و فناوری مطرح شده که مطابق با آن فناوری در دوره‌ پسامدرن بر همه چيز از جمله علم تفوق دارد. سپس انتقادات تاريخ‌نگاران فناوری ارائه شده که در آن نشان داده می‌شود که رابطه‌ علم و فناوری به گواهی تاريخ مطابق با الگوی مذکور نبوده است. در انتها نيز به برخی پيامدهای اين انتقادات بر سياست‌گذاری علم و فناوری اشاره می‌شود. AWT-SEP مهدی احمدی سعيد زيباکلام AWT-SEP

رفرانس :
  1. Agassi, J., 1982, “How Technology Aids and Impedes the Growth of Science”, Paper presented at the PSA: Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, p. 587.
  2. Agassi, J., 1980, “Between Science and Technology”, Philosophy of Science, 47(1), pp. 82-99.
  3. Cotgrove, S., 1975, “Technology, Rationality and Domination”, Social Studies of Science, 5(1), pp. 55-78.
  4. De Vries, M.J., 2005, Teaching about Technology: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology for Non-philosophers, Springer. p. 83.
  5. Mitcham, C., 1994, Thinking Through Technology: The Path between Engineering and Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press, pp.207-208.
  6. Jevons, F.R., 1976, “The Interaction of Science and Technology Today, or, Is Science the Mother of Invention?”, Technology and Culture, 17(4), pp. 729-742.
  7. Henry, J., 2002, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, p.36.
  8. Rees, G., 2000, “Bacon, Francis”, In W. Applebaum (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution From Copernicus to Newton, pp. 102-108, Garland Publishing Inc., p.104.
  9. Hooykaas, R., 2003, “The Rise of Modern Science: When and Why?”, In M. Hellyer (Ed.), The Scientific Revolution: The Essential Readings, pp. 19-43, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 36-38.
  10. Applebaum, W., 2005, “The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science, GREENWOOD PRESS, p. 90.
  11. Shapin, S., 1996, “The Scientific Revolution”, University of Chicago Press, p. 74.
  12. McClellan, J.E. and Dorn, H., 2006, “Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction”, Second Edition, The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 245-247.
  13. Gaukroger, S., 2004, Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 14-16.
  14. Keller, A., 1984, “Has Science Created Technology?”, Minerva, 22(2), pp. 160-182.
  15. McGinn, R.E., 1976, “Workshop on the Interrelations between Science and Technology, and Ethics and Values: Reston, Virginia, April 10-12, 1975”, Technology and Culture, 17(2), pp. 249-255.
  16. Channell, D.F., 2009, “The Emergence of the Engineering Sciences: An Historical Analysis”, In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, pp. 117-154, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, p. 124.
  17. Dusek, V., 2006, Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing, p. 51.
  18. Arnhart, L., 2005, “Bacon, Francis”, In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics, 1, pp. 165-168.
  19. Bacon, F., 2000, The New Organon, Cambridge University Press, p. 103.
  20. Glazebrook, T., 2004, “Global Technology and the Promise of Control”, In D. Tabachnick and T. Koivukoski (Eds.), Globalization, Technology, and Philosophy, chapter8, pp. 143-158, State University of New York Press.
  21. Finch, J.K., 1961, “Engineering and Science: A Historical Review and Appraisal”, Technology and Culture, 2(4), pp. 318-332.
  22. Bacon, F., 2007, The New Atlantis, Filiquarian Publishing, pp. 207-208.
  23. Lee, K., 2009, “Homo faber: the Unity of the History and Philosophy of Technology”, In J.K.B. Olsen, E. Selinger and S. Riis (Eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Technology, pp. 13-39.
  24. Scharff, R.C., 2009, “Technology as “Applied Science”, In J.K.B. Olsen, S.A. Pedersen and V.F. Hendricks (Eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology, pp. 160-164, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, p. 160.
  25. Sismondo, S., 2010, An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies, Second Edition, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., p. 93.
  26. Grove, J.W., 1980, “Science as Technology: Aspects of a Potent Myth”, Minerva, 18(2), pp. 293-312.
  27. Rodis-Lewis, G., 1992, “Descartes' Life and The Development of His Philosophy”, In J. Cottingham (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, pp. 21-57, Cambridge University Press, p. 27.
  28. Descartes, R., 1929, A Discourse on Method, J. Veitch (Trans.), London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., p. 49.
  29. Schouls, P.A., 1989, Descartes and the Enlightenment, Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press, p. 29.
  30. Cottingham, J., 1998, “Introduction”, In J. Cottingham (Ed.), Descartes, pp. 1-27, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. Arnhart, L., 2005, “Descartes, Rene”, In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, 2, pp. 499-502, Thomson Gale, p. 501.
  32. Bunge, M., 1966, “Technology as Applied Science”, Technology and Culture, 7(3), pp. 329-347.
  33. Bunge, M., 1985, “Technology: From Engineering to Decision Theory”, Treatise on Basic Philosophy, 7, pp. 219-311.
  34. Radder, H., 2009, “Science, Technology and the Science-Technology Relationship”, In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, pp. 65-92, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, p. 70.
  35. Bunge, M., 1979, “Philosophical Inputs and Outputs of Technology”, In R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition, pp. 172-181, p.174.
  36. Forman, P., 2007, “The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology”, History and Technology, 23(1), pp. 1-152.
  37. Forman, P., 2010, “(Re)cognizing Postmodernity: Helps for Historians – of Science Especially”, Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgesch, 33, pp. 157-75.
  38. Forman, P., 2002, “Recent Science: Late-Modern and Post-Modern”, In P. Mirowski and E.M. Sent (Eds.), Science Bought and Sold: Rethinking the Economics of Science, pp. 109-148, Chicago, IL: Harwood, p.119
  39. Lyotard, J.F., 1979, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, G. Bennington and B. Massumi (Trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3,11,37.
  40. Anderson, P., 1998, The Origins of Postmodernity, London/New York: Verso, p. 87.
  41. Borgmann, A., 1992, Crossing the Postmodern Divide, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p. 42.
  42. Dickson, D., 1984, The New Politics of Science, New York: Pantheon.
  43. Müller, I., 2007, A History of Thermodynamics (The Doctrine of Energy and Entropy), Berlin: Springer.
  44. Cardwell, D., 1971, From Watt to Clausius: The Rise of Thermodynamics in the Early Industrial Age, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
  45. Cardwell, D., 1963, Steam Power in the Eighteenth Century, London: Sheed and Ward.
  46. Cardwell, D., 1978, “Science and the Steam Engine Reconsidered”, Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 49(1977-78), pp. 111-120.
  47. Cardwell, D., 1976, “Science and Technology: The Work of James Prescott Joule”, Technology and Culture, 17(4), pp. 674-687.
  48. Cardwell, D., 1967, “Some Factors in the Early Development of the Concepts of Power, Work and Energy”, Technology and Culture, 3(3), pp. 209-224.
  49. Hartley, H., 1961, “The Dent of Engineering to Fellow of Royal Society”, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 16(1), pp. 136-140.
  50. Cardwell, D., 1965, “Power Technologies and the Advance of Science, 1700-1825” Technology and Culture, 6(2), pp. 188-207.
  51. Constant II, E.W., 1973, “A Model for Technological Change Applied to the Turbojet Revolution”, Technology and Culture, 14(4), pp. 553-572.
  52. Layton, E.T., 1976, “Scientific Technology, 1845-1900: The Hydraulic Turbine and the Origins of American Industrial Research”, Technology and Culture, 20(1), pp. 64-89.
  53. Reynolds, T.S., 1979, “Scientific Influences on Technology: The Case of the Overshot Waterwheel, 1752-1754”, Technology and Culture, 20(2), pp. 270-95.
  54. Rae, J.B., 1961, “Science and Engineering in the History of Aviation”, Technology and Culture, 2(4), pp. 391-39.
  55. Constant II, E.W., 1980, The Origins of Turbojet Revolution, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  56. Constant II, E.W., 1984, “Communities and Hierarchies: Structure in the Practice of Science and Technology”, In R. Laudan (Ed.), The Nature of Technological Knowledge. Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant?, pp. 27-46, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  57. Vincenti, W.G., 1984, “Technological Knowledge without Science: The Innovation of Flush Riveting in American Airplanes, ca. 1930-ca. 1950”, Technology and Culture, 25(3), pp. 540-576.
  58. Vincenti, W.G., 1979, “The Davis Wing and the Problem of Airfoil Design: Uncertainty and Growth in Engineering Knowledge”, Technology and Culture, 27(4), pp. 717-758.
  59. Vincenti, W.G., 1979, “The Air-Propeller Tests of W. F. Durand and E. P. Lesley: A Case Study in Technological Methodology”, Technology and Culture, 20(4), pp. 712-751.
  60. Vincenti, W.G., 1982, “Control-Volume Analysis A Difference in Thinking between Engineering and Physics”, Technology and Culture, 23(2), pp. 145-174.
  61. Küppers, G., 1978, “On the Relation between Technology and Science - Goals of Knowledge and Dynamics of Theories, the Example of Combustion Technology, Thermodynamics and Fluidmechanics”, In W. Krohn, E. Layton and P. Weingart (Eds.), The Dynamics of Science and Technology, 2, Dordrecht: Reidel.
  62. Vincenti, W.G., 1990, What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  63. Kline, R., 1987, “Science and Engineering Theory in the Invention and Development of the Induction Motor, 1880-1900”, Technology and Culture, 28(2), pp. 283-313.
  64. Hughes, T.P., 1976, “The Science-Technology Interaction: The Case of High-Voltage Power Transmission Systems”, Technology and Culture, 17(4), pp. 646-662.
  65. Smith, C.S., 1961, “The Interaction of Science and Practice in the History of Metallurgy” Technology and Culture, 2(4), pp. 357-367.
  66. Smith, C.S., 1960, A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  67. Multhauf, R., 1966, The Origins of Chemistry, Londone: Oldbourne.
  68. Multhauf, R., 1976, “Geology, Chemistry, and the Production of Common Salt”, Technology and Culture, 17(4), pp. 634-645.
  69. Multhauf, R., 1965, “Sal Ammoniac: A Case History in Industrialization”, Technology and Culture, 6(4), pp. 569-586.
  70. Leicester, H.M., 1961, “Chemistry, Chemical Technology, and Scientific Progress”, Technology and Culture, 2(4), pp. 352-356.
  71. Kohlmeyer, F.W. and Herum, F.L., 1961, “Sciencea nd Engineeringi n Agriculture: A Historical Perspective”, Technology and Culture, 2(4), pp. 368-380.
  72. Tobey, R., 1976, “Theoretical Science and Technology in American Ecology”, Technology and Culture, 17(4), pp. 718-728.
  73. Layton, E.T., 1971, “Mirror-Image Twins: The Communities of Science and Technology in 19th-Century America” Technology and Culture, 12(4), pp. 562-580.
  74. Ferguson, E., 1962, “On the Origin and Development of American Mechanical 'Know-How'”, Midcontinent American Studies Journal, 3(2), pp. 3-16.
  75. Smith, T.M., 1976, “Project Whirlwind: An Unorthodox Development Project”, Technology and Culture, 17(3), pp. 447-464.
  76. Price, D.J.d.S., 1984, “The Science/Technology Relationship, the Craft of Experimental Science, and Policy for the Improvement of High Technology Innovation”, Research Policy, 13, pp. 3-20.
  77. Price, D.J.d.S., 1965, “Is Technology Historically Independent of Science? A Study in Statistical Historiography”, Technology and Culture, 6(4), pp. 553-568.
  78. Cardwell, D., 1967, Turning Points in Western Technology: A Study of Technology, Science and History, New York, N.Y.: Neale Watson Academic, p. 244.
  79. Cardwell, D., 1980, “Science, Technology, and Industry”, In G.S. Rousseau and R. Porter (Eds.), The Ferment of Knowledge: Studies in Historiography of Eighteenth-Century Science, pp. 449-483, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Sherwin, C.W. and Isenson, R.S., 1967, “Project Hindsight”, Science, 156(3782), pp. 1571-1577.
  81. Gibbons, M. and Johnson, C., 1970, “Relationship between Science and Technology”, Nature, 227, pp. 125-127.
  82. Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W.G. and Jevons, F.R., 1972, Wealth from Knowledge, London: McMillan.
  83. Gibbons, M. and Johnson, C., 1974, “The Roles of Science in Technological Innovation”, Research Policy, 3, pp. 220-242.
  84. Bush, V., 1945, Science, The Endless Frontier, Washington, DC: U.S. Gov't Printing Office.
  85. Gazis, D.C., 1979, “Influence of Technology on Science: a Comment on Some Experiences at IBM Research”, Research Policy, 8, pp. 244-259.
  86. Breschia, S. and Catalini, C., 2010, “Tracing the Links between Science and Technology: An Exploratory Analysis of Scientists’ and Inventors’ Networks”, Research Policy, 39, pp. 14-26.
  87. Meyer, M., 2000, “Does Science Push Technology? Patents Citing Scientific Literature”, Research Policy, 29, pp. 409-434.
  88. Brooks, H., 1994, “The Relationship between Sciecne and Technology”, Research Policy, 23, pp. 477-486.
  89. Rosenberg, N., 1970, “Economic Development and the Transfer of Technology: Some Historical Perspectives”, Technology and Culture, 11(4), pp. 550-575.
  90. Rosenberg, N. and Birdzell, L.E., 1986, How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World, Basic Books Inc.
  91. Rosenberg, N., 2008, Inside The Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University Press.
  92. Gardner, P.L., 1999, “The Representation of Science-Technology Relationships in Canadian Textbooks”, International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), pp. 329-347.
  93. Gardner, P.L., 1995, “The Relationship between Technology and Science: Some Historical and Philosophical Reflections. Part II”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, pp. 1-33.
  94. Gardner, P.L., 1994, “The Relationship between Technology and Science: Some Historical and Philosophical Reflections. Part I”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, pp. 123-153.
  95. Gardner, P.L., 1993, “Textbook Representations of Science -Technology Relationships”, Research in Science Education, 23, pp. 85-94.
  96. Gil-Pe´rez, D., Vilches, A., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J. and Salians, J., 2005, “Technology as ‘Applied Science’: A Serious Misconception that Reinforces Distorted and Impoverished Views of Science”, Science & Education, 14, pp. 309-320.
  97. پایا، علی و کلانتری‌نژاد، رضا، 1389، "ارزیابی فلسفی و دلالت‌های سیاستگذارانه تاثیرات چهارمین موج توسعه‌ی علمی و فناورانه بر فرهنگ و جامعه: ملاحظاتی از دیدگاه عقلانیت نقاد"، فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری، 2(4)، صص. 52-33.
  98. پایا، علی، 1387، "ترویج علم در جامعه؛ یک ارزیابی فلسفی"، فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری، 1(1)، صص. 38-25.