Abstract
This chapter is concerned with the impact technological innovation has on key concepts employed in developing an adequate epistemology. In particular, I look at the impact of three technologies of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, the theory and techniques of perspective the telescope, and the microscope, on our concept of observation. It is argued that the concept of a scientific observation is fundamental to a robust empiricist/pragmatist epistemology. A scientific observation differs from ordinary seeing by employing technologies that may or may not have a role in the ordinary world of common sense. It is further argued that these refinements take place over an extended period of time and thus require a bigger timeframe than is usually meant when people talk about technological and scientific change taking place in context. The notion of context is hopelessly confused and in its place I propose the concept of a problematic. A problematic is an historical phenomenon that covers the period of time it takes for new technologies to become embedded in social practices. The importance of seeing how technological innovations become standardized and accepted and produce new ways of developing knowledge undergirds the final idea introduced here: philosophical concepts and questions change over time; there are no perennial questions and answers, only constant change.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. London: G. Bell.
Dobell, C. (1932). Athony van Leeuwenhoek and his ‘Little Animals’. London: John Bale, Sons and Danielsson.
Egerton, F. (1976). The Renaissance rediscovery of linear perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Galilei, G. (1610/1989). Siderius Nuncius, translated with Introduction, Conclusion, and Notes by Albert Van Heiden. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grene, M. (1987). Historical realism and contextual objectivity: A developing perspective in the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Grene, M. (1993). Recent biographies of Darwin: The complexity of context. Perspectives on Science, 1(4), 659–675.
Hooke, R. (1665). Micrographia. London: Royal Society.
Ivins, W. M., Jr. (1946). Art and geometry; A study in space intuitions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pedoe, D. (1976). Geometry and visual arts. Harmondsworth: Penquin Books, Ltd.
Pitt, J. C. (1992a). Problematics in the history of philosophy. Synthese, 92(1), 117–134.
Pitt, J. C. (1992b). Galileo, human knowledge, and the book of nature; Method replaces metaphysics (Western Ontario series in the philosophy of science, Vol. 50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Press.
Turner, G. (1980). Microscopical communication. In Essays on the history of the microscope (pp. 215–232). Oxford: Senecio Publishing Company, Ltd.
Van Heiden, A. (1989). The telescope and cosmic dimensions. In R. Taton & C. Wilson (Eds.), The general history of astronomy (Vol. 2A, pp. 106–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pitt, J.C. (2017). The Role of Technologies in Undermining the Perennial Philosophy. In: Michelfelder, D., Newberry, B., Zhu, Q. (eds) Philosophy and Engineering. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45193-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45193-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45191-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45193-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)