by Technology is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “scientific knowledge used in practical ways in industry, for example in designing new machines.” While this definition highlights one way in which science and technology intersect, this definition is based on the idea that scientific knowledge is the necessary precursor to technological advancement.
The misconception that practical discoveries emerge from pure science is common, yet it is an idea that is commonly countered by historians of technology. In his book Technology Matters, historian David Nye points to instances where innovations were the precursor to the scientific understanding that followed to support his claim that, “for most of human history technology came first; theory came later and tried to make sense of practical results.”(9) Nye discusses Thomas Edison’s light bulb, the Wright Brother’s airplane, and Newcomen’s steam engine as influential technologies of today which were conceived through trial and error techniques rather than the mathematical equations and scientific theories that explain these technological breakthroughs.
Yet the Oxford dictionary not only fails to consider that not all technology is derived from “scientific knowledge” but it also fails to incorporate in its definition the importance that society plays in both shaping and evolving through technological discoveries. While the term “technology” has developed an increasingly narrow definition in our society – one which conveys images of iPhones, Facebook, and Silicon Valley – historians and philosophers of science have pointed out the ways in which machine and science cannot be separated from its social pattern.
Karl Popper, one of the 20th century’s most influential philosophers’ states in Science: Conjectures and Refutations that “all – or very nearly all – scientific theories originate from myths.” But what determines a myth? A blend of imagination and storytelling? And how does that translate into hypotheses? The conception of hypotheses is something that philosophers struggle to explain. Yet it is clear that the myths and stories that predate hypotheses are both molded and accepted by a society: the assumptions and biases of the “imaginer” along with the societal norms which dictate whose “myths” will be listened to.
Thomas Khum’s Paradigm Shift philosophy demonstrates another example of one way in which society and technology are inherently intertwined. Kuhn’s Paradigm interpretation states that a paradigm (the “practice that defines a scientific discipline at a certain point in time”) dictates the standard assumptions and way of looking at problems throughout a certain time period.
However, the choice of one paradigm over the other is not based on scientific objectivity or rationality, but rather is historically contingent. Thus, the “paradigm” from which scientific and technological discoveries are made within is inherently dependent on the cultural assumptions and societal values of the time in which they are made. With “scientific knowledge” often following innovations, and social pattern playing an integral role in shaping science, discoveries in science and technology are not constrained by our “scientific knowledge,” but rather by the pitfalls in our society which marginalize new perspectives and voices.
In the United States, women were originally excluded from technical education at university-level institutes such as MIT and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This exclusion mirrors a continued gap between men and women in STEM fields. Technology companies now dominate the world’s largest companies measured by market capitalization. Yet out of the big five tech companies, not one CEO is a woman. In fact, only 11% of executive positions in Silicon Valley companies are held by women. With a predominant patriarchal climate in STEM, it is unsurprising that women working in STEM jobs are more likely than men (and women from other sectors) to say they have experienced workplace discrimination due to their gender.
Technology is not only an indicator of the development of humankind, but an indicator of the marginalization of women through time. When women are pushed to the margins of science and technological innovation, not only are we losing perspectives that may expand our scientific knowledge and technological advancements, but we are simultaneously creating a society which will continue replicate this marginalization. With our 21st century society always on lookout for the next cutting-edge breakthrough we must inquire: is marginalization the limiting factor of the technology?
Sources
Annas, Pamela, et al. “Women and Science — Introduction.” The Radical Teacher, no. 30, 1986, pp. 1–2. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20709511. Accessed 6 Sept. 2020.
Nye, David E.. Technology Matters: Questions to Live With, MIT Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Ventral. Created from Colby on 2018-09-05 16:18:25.
Parker, C. (2020, August 21). Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity. Retrieved September 06, 2020, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/
Popper, Karl. “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.” Routledge and Kegan Paul. London, Melbourne and Henley, 2010.
Jiang, Lijing. “Lecture Part 2 : Kuhn’s Paradigm.”
Oxford Dictionary. “Technology. (n.d.).” Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/technology