1. Philosophy of Technology and Engineering
Introduction
First published in 1970, Paul Goodman offers a somewhat prescient perspective that serves to reveal, in succinct terms, that the content of technology education needs to transcend the mere provision of vocationally orientated skills, which tends to continue as the dominant orthodoxy today. In the evermore technologically textured world we now inhabit, the delivery of technology education at all levels, including the concept of STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), must, for Goodman, include the development of critical and philosophical competencies, competencies that are not considered to be separate, distinct, and different from other curriculum subjects, but are, rather, considered as integral and complementary to them.
Considering technology from this standpoint is not a recent phenomena. It can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato ( Laws ) and Aristotle ( Physics ). Plato, for example, argued that technology imitates nature: modern example being airplanes imitating bird flight. However, Aristotle, his former student, disagreed. Aristotle made an ontological distinction between nature and technology:
the former have their principles of generation and motion inside, whereas the latter, insofar as they are artifacts, are generated only by outward causes, namely human aims and forms in the human soul. Natural products (animals and their parts, plants, and the four elements) move, grow, change, and reproduce themselves by inner final causes; they are driven by purposes of nature. Artifacts, on the other hand, cannot reproduce themselves. Without human care and intervention, they vanish after some time by losing their artificial forms and decomposing into (natural) materials. (Franssen et al. )
These ancient examples of competing philosophical perspectives on technology, as well as the many contemporary debates offered today, such as those offered in this section, serve to continue to challenge the received wisdom of the day regarding the relationship between the development of human beings and their technologies. According to Henry Bergsons writing in 1911, the development of human intelligence and creativity is, and continues to be, a direct result of this interaction:
If we could get rid ourselves of all pride, if, to define species, we kept strictly to what the historic and prehistoric periods show us to be the constant characteristics of man and of intelligence, we should say not Homo sapiens , but Homo faber . In short, intelligence, considered in what seems to be its original feature, is the faculty of manufacturing artificial objects, especially tools to make tools, and of indefinitely varying the manufacture. (Bergson : 139)
While philosophical issues relating to technology have been debated for millennia, the concept of a distinctive philosophy of technology is now an established academic domain, albeit as a relative newcomer. Marc de Vries explores this in some detail in his chapter General Introduction . He explores the progress of the philosophy of technology in terms of its conceptualization. Drawing particularly from Carl Mitchams Thinking Through Technology and the Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences edited by Anthonie Meijers, de Vries explores the relationship between engineering and technology as well as the natural sciences. However, he does make some important distinctions between technology and science, especially in terms of modeling. This leads on to a discussion regarding the importance for an ethical dimension being a necessary part of the learning process about technology. This is especially true with regard to designing where value-laden judgments become a relevant focus. De Vries concludes by postulating on the future role of philosophy in relation to technology education.
In my own chapter entitled Nomadology, a lens to Explore the Concept of Technological Literacy , I attempt to fuse the concept of what the French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari call nomadology, with the philosophy of Clestin Freinet, a French educationalist and philosopher who believed in a more student-centric form of pedagogy. In so doing, I attempt to open up a discussion on the concept of technological literacy as a necessary component in the teaching and learning that is related to technology. I argue that there is much more to technology education than the mastering of technological know-how and the techniques associated with the fabrication of artifacts. Considered thus, technology cannot be autonomous, it is, rather, part of a more complex network of relationships that include social, economic, political, cultural, and philosophical discourses that both affect human beings and is affected by human beings.
Joseph Pitt questions why we do not examine the relationships between the curriculum subjects that are taught in both schools and beyond. In his chapter, Teaching Science and Technology , he suggests that in order to understand technology, one needs to develop a deeper understanding as to how the related historical, cultural, religious, and social aspects are intertwined and how these relationships impact upon technological development and each other. Pitt also goes on to question the merits and funding of the concept of big science and technology. He argues that this concept has difficulty in articulating with current theory. Clearly, this presents problems for the teaching of science and technology.