Defending extension theory: A response to Kiran and Verbeek

Philosophy and Technology 25 (1):121-128 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent publication in this journal, Asle Kiran and Peter-Paul Verbeek (hereafter K&V) argue that extension theory and the notion of trust it implies are flawed. In this commentary, I defend extension theory against their critique. I first briefly introduce extension theory, then reconstruct K&V’s five arguments against extension theory and demonstrate that four of their five arguments are misplaced.

Similar books and articles

Trusting Our Selves to Technology.Asle H. Kiran & Peter-Paul Verbeek - 2010 - Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23 (3):409-427.
What Things Still Don’t Do. [REVIEW]David M. Kaplan - 2009 - Human Studies 32 (2):229 - 240.
A moratorium on cyborgs: Computation, cognition, and commerce. [REVIEW]Evan Selinger & Timothy Engström - 2008 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 7 (3):327-341.
You do the maths: rules, extension, and cognitive responsibility.Tom Roberts - 2012 - Philosophical Explorations 15 (2):133 - 145.
Life-extension and the malthusian objection.John K. Davis - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (1):27 – 44.
The Web‐Extended Mind.Paul R. Smart - 2012 - Metaphilosophy 43 (4):446-463.
Sketch this: extended mind and consciousness extension.Victor Loughlin - 2013 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12 (1):41-50.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-06-16

Downloads
972 (#14,229)

6 months
106 (#40,358)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Richard Heersmink
Tilburg University