Technology, Science, and Perception: Key Concepts & Examples
Political Dimensions of Technology
I. Introduction: Langdon Winner argues that technology has political dimensions, demonstrating how artifacts enforce or shape power structures. Thesis: Technological artifacts are not neutral; they embody and reinforce political structures, intentionally or unintentionally.
II. Body:
- Robert Moses’ Low Bridges: Designed to prevent buses (and therefore lower-income and minority communities) from accessing certain areas.
- Nuclear Power Plants: Require centralized authority and hierarchical control, limiting democratic governance.
- Tuskegee Experiment & Medical Ethics: Structures like IRBs were later implemented to prevent future unethical studies, showing how policies emerge in response to technological/medical abuses.
III. Conclusion: Synthesizing the examples: Artifacts reflect and shape societal power dynamics. Science and technology are deeply intertwined with politics, requiring critical evaluation of their societal implications.
Paradigm Shifts in Science
I. Introduction: Present the traditional view of science as gradual progress. Introduce Thomas Kuhn’s argument about paradigm shifts. Thesis: Scientific progress is not a steady accumulation of knowledge but a series of paradigm shifts that challenge and replace existing frameworks.
II. Body:
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Science changes through crisis and revolutions, not linear accumulation.
- The Tuskegee Experiment & Medical Ethics: The idea of medical “advancement” masked unethical practices; progress in research ethics was reactive, not linear.
- HIV/AIDS Activism & Lay Expertise: Scientists initially ignored activists, but activists shaped drug research, challenging the assumption that scientific knowledge progresses in isolation.
III. Conclusion: Science is shaped by social, ethical, and political forces rather than a purely objective quest for truth. Recognizing paradigm shifts allows for a more accurate understanding of scientific change.
Perception and Scientific Understanding
I. Introduction: Introduce the idea that perception is not neutral but guided by tools and assumptions. Thesis: What we perceive is shaped by the instruments, methods, and theoretical frameworks we use, influencing scientific and medical understanding.
II. Body:
- Pulse Diagnosis: Greek vs. Chinese Medicine – Greeks saw little significance in pulse until they understood capillaries, while Chinese medicine relied on pulse as a key diagnostic tool.
- Experimental Ethics & Informed Consent: Perception of ethical research changed after Tuskegee and Nuremberg, shifting how experiments were conducted.
- Paradigm Shifts in Science: Kuhn’s argument that anomalies challenge existing frameworks, forcing a shift in perception.
III. Conclusion: Scientific and medical knowledge is shaped by how we perceive and interpret data. Perception is influenced by historical, cultural, and technological contexts.
Key Concepts
- Technopolitics: Winner argues that technologies shape social order and power structures, rejecting the idea that they are neutral. His examples, like infrastructure design, show how technological choices enforce political agendas.
- Technology’s Politics: Both argue technology is socially embedded, but Winner focuses on design’s inherent politics while Hecht examines user agency. Their work challenges technological determinism and highlights technology’s evolving meanings.
- Artifact network: Technological artifacts are shaped by larger social and physical systems, challenging both technological determinism and purely social explanations. This view emphasizes the complex, contingent nature of technological development.
- Interpretative Flexibility: Users redefine technology’s purpose, as seen in Cowan’s analysis of household tech. Kline and Pinch’s concept of interpretative flexibility explains how users influence technological evolution.
- Symmetry: Law argues that social and technical elements in a system should be analyzed equally, avoiding bias toward human agency. This perspective clarifies how networks function without privileging any single component.
- Laboratory: Latour rejects rigid distinctions between laboratories and the outside world, showing that scientific knowledge is shaped by external social and material influences. Science “works” as a dynamic network.
- Objectivity: Daston and Galison’s “mechanical objectivity” seeks to eliminate bias, similar to Porter, but they acknowledge the continued role of expert interpretation. Challenges pure objectivity in science.
- Gendered Science: Martin and Haraway reveal how patriarchal metaphors, like passive eggs and active sperm, shape scientific narratives. Cultural biases influence what is considered objective knowledge.
- Medical Metaphors: Both Martin and Strocchia analyze how medical metaphors shape perceptions of the body, though Martin focuses on gendered language while Strocchia examines historical imagery. Their work critiques science’s claimed neutrality.
- Social Medicine: Medicine is always socially constructed, but Rosenberg’s historical approach contrasts with modern empirical studies. This shows how medical authority and practices shift with cultural values.
- Tuskegee Experiments: Racism, systemic neglect, and weak oversight allowed Tuskegee to persist despite the Nuremberg Code. The U.S. government’s failure underscores ethical breaches in scientific research.
- Expert and Lay Knowledge: Expertise is institutionally constructed but challenged by lay actors, like in HIV/AIDS activism. This shows that scientific authority is fluid and shaped by broader social interactions.