Abstract
The search for an appropriate normative basis for evaluating technology has been conditioned in the last quarter century1 by a type of policy analysis known as technology assessment (TA). While there is no logical necessity that the philosopher of technology frame his/her own understanding of technological phenomena according to the interpretive model which it provides, TA does aim at a comprehensive picture of the factors which define technological choices and, at the same time, directs our attention to the broader social context that is affected, often unintentionally, when a new technology is introduced, or an existing one is significantly modified. Given its claim to comprehensiveness and its growing use among the major industrialized countries, TA deserves careful and thorough analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Porter, A., Rossini, F., Carpenter, S., and Roper, A. A Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis (New York: North Holland, 1980), esp. Chapter 3.
Daddario, E. (1968) “Subcommittee Report: Science, Research and Development, Committee on Science and Astronautics,” U. S. House, 90th Congress, First Session.
TAs: Jamaica Bay Environmental Study Group (1971) Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1978) Technology Assessment of Coal Slurry Pipelines, Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Little, Arthur D. Inc. (1975) The Consequences of Electronic Funds Transfer, Cambridge, MA: Prepared for National Science Foundation under contract NSF-C884.
BDM Corporation (1977) Study of Alternative Strategies and Methods for Conserving Energy, McLean, VA: Prepared for NSF under contract NSF-C885.
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1978) Application of Solar Technology to Today’s Energy Needs, Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Coates, V. T. Technology and Public Policy: The Processes of Technology Assessment in the Federal Government (Washington, DC: George Washington, 1972), University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, vol. 1, p. 5.
Vlacos, E. “Transnational Interest in Technology Assessment,” paper presented at International Society of Technology Assessment Conference (Ann Arbor, Michigan 13 October, 1976 ).
Dickson, D. The Politics of Alternative Technology (New York: Universe Books, 1975), pp. 103, 104.
Schumacher, E. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered ( New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1973 ).
MacDonald, G. “The Modification of the Planet Earth by Man,” Technology Review 71, 1 (October-November 1969), pp. 27–35.
Stobaugh, R., and Yergin, D. Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School ( New York: Random House, 1979 ), pp. 136 - 182.
E. Mazria. The Passive Solar Energy Book ( Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books, 1979 ).
P. Kropotkin, Mutual Aid ( Boston: Extending Horizon Books, 1914 ).
P. Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops (1899), republished ( New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1974 ).
M. Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism (San Francisco: Ramparts Press, 1971).
Illich, I. Tools for Conviviality (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
Winner, L. “The Political Philosophy of Alternative Technology: Historical Roots and Present Prospects,” in Lovekin, D. and Verene, D. (eds.), Essays in Humanity and Technology ( Dixon, IL: Sauk Valley College, 1977 ), p. 131.
J. Harrison, Quest for the New Moral World ( New York: Scribner’s, 1969 ).
S. Carpenter and T. Langenbruch as Analytical Philosophy of Technology ( Boston: Reidel, 1978 ), p. 146.
S. Carpenter and T. Langenbruch as Analytical Philosophy of Technology ( Boston: Reidel, 1978 ), p. 138.
L. White, Jr. (1974) “Technology Assessment from the Stance of a Medieval Historian,” American Historical Review 79, 1 (February), p. 9.
Carpenter, R. “The Scope and Limits of Technology Assessment,” in Technology Assessment, R. Kasper (ed.) ( New York: Praeger, 1972 ).
U.S. National Academy of Engineering (1969) A Study of Technology Assessment, Committee on Public Engineering Policy (COPEP), prepared for U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Washington, DC, pp. 13, 14.
Green, H. (1970) “The Adversary Process in Technology Assessment,” Technology and Society, 5, pp. 163–67.
U.S. Senate (1972) ‘Technology Assessment for the Congress,’ Staff Study of the Subcommittee on Computer Services of the Committee on Rules and Administration, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1 November), p. 15.
Wynne, B. (1975) “The Rhetoric of Consensus Politics: A Critical Review of Technology Assessment,” Research Policy 4, 12–14.
Macpherson, C. (1967) “Democratic Theory: Ontology and Technology,” in Political Theory and Social Change, D. Spitz (ed.) ( New York: Atherton Press ), pp. 203–20.
Ferkiss, V. The Future of Technological Civilization (New York: Braziller, 1974), esp. pp. 3–61.
A. Smith The Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, 1937 edition), p. 681.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1971 ).
Daly, H. (ed.) Toward a Steady-State Economy (San Francisco: Freeman, 1972).
E. Mishan (1971) “On Making the Future Safe for Mankind,” The Public Interest (Summer), 33–61 and Technology and Growth ( New York: Praeger, 1969 ).
E. Goldsmith etal. (1972) “A Blueprint for Survival,” The Ecologist 2; and the Club of Rome sponsored studies including D. Meadows etal. The Limits to Growth ( New York: Universe Books, 1972 ).
Mesarovic, M. and Pestel, E. Mankind at the Turning Point ( New York: Dutton, 1974 ).
Pigou, A. The Economics of Welfare (London: Macmillan, 1932), 4th ed., pp. 134–135.
Kapp, K. The Social Costs of Private Enterprise, revised edition ( New York: Schochen, 1971 ).
Weinstein, J. (1981) “Is Social Impact Analysis Good Social Science?” Draft of remarks for presentation at 44th annual meeting, Southern Sociological Society, Louisville, KY (April 8 - 11 ).
Kotarbinski, T. Praxiology: An Introduction to the Science of Efficient Action, translated by O. Wojtasiewicz (London: Pergamon, 1965).
Guest, R. “The Rationalization of Management,” in Technology in Western Civilization, vol. II, M. Kranzberg and C. Pursell, Jr., (eds.) ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1967 ), p. 59.
Hardin, G. (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162 (13 December), 1243–48.
H. Skolimowski (1970) “Problems of Truth in Technology,” Ingenor 8, pp. 41–46.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1980) “Technology Assessment as Applied Philospphy of Science,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 33 (Fall), pp. 33–50.
Toulmin, S. (1977) “From Form to Function: Philosophy and History of Science in the 1950s and Now” Daedalus 106, 3 (Summer), pp. 143–162.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 D. Reidel Publishing Company
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carpenter, S.R. (1983). Technoaxiology: Appropriate Norms for Technology Assessment. In: Durbin, P.T., Rapp, F. (eds) Philosophy and Technology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 80. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7124-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7124-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-7126-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-7124-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive