David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This chapter combines rhetorical with conceptual analysis to argue that the concept of convergence of technologies is a teleological concept that does not describe or predict any recent past, present, or future development. Instead it always expresses or attributes political goals of how future technology should be developed. The concept was already fully developed as a flexible rhetorical tool by US science administrators to create nanotechnology (as nano-convergence), before it was broadened to invent the convergence of nano-, bio-, info-, and cogno-research (NBIC-convergence). Analyzing the use of “convergence” in various US reports, such as in convergence did, does, can, will likely, will necessarily, should, and ought to happen, sheds new light on how science policy avoids public debates about goals and values in deliberating the future, which poses new challenges to STS.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
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
Matthew N. Eisler (2013). “The Ennobling Unity of Science and Technology”: Materials Sciences and Engineering, the Department of Energy, and the Nanotechnology Enigma. [REVIEW] Minerva 51 (2):225-251.
Similar books and articles
George Khushf (2007). Open Questions in the Ethics of Convergence. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3):299 – 310.
Mark B. Couch (2005). Functional Properties and Convergence in Biology. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1041-1051.
Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier (2012). What Exactly Is It All About? Puzzled Comments From a French Legal Scholar on the NBIC Convergence. NanoEthics 6 (3):243-255.
M. Saner (2000). Biotechnology, the Limits of Norton's Convergence Hypothesis, and Implications for an Inclusive Concept of Health. Ethics and the Environment 5 (2):229-241.
Karen Kastenhofer (2010). Do We Need a Specific Kind of Technoscience Assessment? Taking the Convergence of Science and Technology Seriously. Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):37-54.
Malcolm Parker (2007). Two Into One Won't Go: Conceptual, Clinical, Ethical and Legal Impedimenta to the Convergence of Cam and Orthodox Medicine. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (1):7-19.
George Khushf (2007). The Ethics of NBIC Convergence. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3):185 – 196.
Marion Godman & Sven Ove Hansson (2009). European Public Advice on Nanobiotechnology—Four Convergence Seminars. NanoEthics 3 (1):43-59.
Bryan G. Norton (2009). Convergence and Divergence: The Convergence Hypothesis Twenty Years Later. In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Nature in Common?: Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy. Temple University Press
James Hawthorne (1994). On the Nature of Bayesian Convergence. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:241 - 249.
Brian Skyrms (1994). Convergence in Radical Probabilism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:349 - 353.
John T. Ford (1969). Ecumenical Convergence and Theological Pluralism. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 44 (4):531-545.
Bryan G. Norton (1997). Convergence and Contextualism: Some Clarifications and a Reply to Steverson. Environmental Ethics 19 (1):87-100.
Trevor Pearce (2012). Convergence and Parallelism in Evolution: A Neo-Gouldian Account. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (2):429-448.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads29 ( #136,893 of 1,907,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #90,604 of 1,907,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?