The (Alleged) Inherent Normativity of Technological Explanations

Techne 10 (1):79-94 (2006)
Abstract
Technical artifacts have the capacity to fulfill their function in virtue of their physicochemical make-up. An explanation that purports to explicate this relation between artifact function and structure can be called a technological explanation. It might be argued, and Peter Kroes has in fact done so, that there issomething peculiar about technological explanations in that they are intrinsically normative in some sense. Since the notion of artifact function is a normative one (if an artifact has a proper function, it ought to behave in specific ways) an explanation of an artifact’s function must inherit this normativity.In this paper I will resist this conclusion by outlining and defending a ‘buck-passing account’ of the normativity of technological explanations. I will first argue that it is important to distinguish properly between (1) a theory of function ascriptions and (2) an explanation of how a function is realized. The task of the former is to spell out the conditions under which one is justified in ascribing a function to an artifact; the latter should show how the physicochemical make-up of an artifact enables it to fulfill its function. Second, I wish to maintain that a good theory of function ascriptions should account for the normativity of these ascriptions. Provided such a function theory can be formulated — as I think it can — a technological explanation may pass the normativity buck to it. Third, to flesh out these abstract claims, I show how a particular function theory — to wit, the ICE theory by Pieter Vermaas and Wybo Houkes — can be dovetailed smoothly with my own thoughts on technological explanation
Keywords Explanation  Technical artifacts  Normativity  Technical functions
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive Jeroen de Ridder, The (Alleged) Inherent Normativity of Technological Explanations
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA
Jan De Winter (2011). A Pragmatic Account of Mechanistic Artifact Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (4):602-609.
Similar books and articles
Jeroen de Ridder (2006). Mechanistic Artefact Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (1):81-96.
Peter Kroes (2001). Technical Functions as Dispositions. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 5 (3):105-115.
Peter Achinstein (1977). Function Statements. Philosophy of Science 44 (3):341-367.
Rob Vanderbeeken (2006). Can Intentional and Functional Explanations of Actions Coexist? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:143-147.
Ulrich Krohs (2009). Structure and Coherence of Two-Model-Descriptions of Technical Artefacts. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 13 (2):150-161.
Valerie Gray Hardcastle (2002). On the Normativity of Functions. In Andre Ariew (ed.), Functions. Oxford University Press.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-01-09

Total downloads

44 ( #38,137 of 1,101,764 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #35,087 of 1,101,764 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.