In this paper, we propose a Simondonian interpretation of quantum mechanics taking as a standpoint his “preindividual hypothesis” in order to consider the problem of contextuality. We will examine whether the epistemological obstacle produced by the notion of entity can be bypassed by specifying, according to Simondon and the Kochen-Specker Theorem, the mode of existence of quantum potentialities.
In the scientific field, agents can choose to contribute to `normal' science, operate within the most highly legitimated avant-garde science or instead, develop theories within an entirely new theoretical framework, despite the risks which this entails. But the marginality of such theories raises a problem of strategy: those who choose to work on them do so at the expense of their own short-term interests, which would normally be oriented towards occupying a central position in already well-established fields. The theory of (...) scale-relativity demonstrates the interest of such a situation: the door is open to new possibilities, but ones that must be built `from scratch'. To pursue work in this direction is more demanding than to choose a project considered risky within the confines of an existing paradigm. On the one hand, TSR proposes to `innovate' and branch out from already widely-accepted conceptual bases, while, on the other hand, it finds itself in a marginal position with respect to the most legitimate avant-garde theories, such as `superstrings'. The case of the TSR thus allows us to study a region of the scientific field which has hardly been explored by a sociology of science that focuses primarily on `extreme' cases: histories of theories which have since been vindicated or spectacular controversies. In 2006, TSR occupies a marginal position within the field of physics. Its status differs widely from `theories' produced outside the field, yet does not correspond to any form of stable, accepted science. As we will show, using a detailed bibliometric analysis, the theory's diffusion throughout the scientific field has been limited — albeit real — and its results, when sanctioned by an official publication, are rarely taken into account by researchers who are not already TSR collaborators. This isolation within the field reveals conflict and tension between the transformation intended by a theoretical innovation and the norms of standard peer review. As a conclusion, we will compare the strategies of TSR's founder with those of other researchers who — at some point in their career — have attempted to reorient their scientific trajectory, which in turn reveals the social conditions of these bifurcations that put previously accumulated scientific capital at risk. (shrink)
Since the 1930’s, several attempts have been made to develop a general theory of technical systems or objects and their evolution: in France, Jacques Lafitte, André Leroi-Gourhan, Bertrand Gille, Yves Deforge, and Gilbert Simondon are the main representatives of this trend. In this paper, we focus on the work of Simondon: his analysis of technical progress is based on the hypothesis that technology has its own laws and that customer demand has no paramount influence upon the evolution of technical systems. (...) We first describe the process Simondon called “concretization” and compare it with the process of “idealization” as defined by Genrich Altshuller. We then explain how the progress of technical lineages can be characterized as following a specific rhythm of relaxation and how it thus obeys a “law” of evolution in the industrial context. Simondon’s theoretical approach, although similar to some aspects of methodologies of conception, emphasized a more accurate understanding of technical progress over possible operational applications. Simondon never intended to optimize the engineer’s tasks from an economic point of view and, in fact, his conception of technical progress can be considered as independent from the capitalistic trend of innovation. However, the philosophy of Simondon provides a better understanding of what is at stake theoretically in the modeling of laws of technical evolution. (shrink)
Since the 1930’s, several attempts have been made to develop a general theory of technical systems or objects and their evolution: in France, Jacques Lafitte, André Leroi-Gourhan, Bertrand Gille, Yves Deforge, and Gilbert Simondon are the main representatives of this trend. In this paper, we focus on the work of Simondon: his analysis of technical progress is based on the hypothesis that technology has its own laws and that customer demand has no paramount influence upon the evolution of technical systems. (...) We first describe the process Simondon called “concretization” and compare it with the process of “idealization” as defined by Genrich Altshuller. We then explain how the progress of technical lineages can be characterized as following a specific rhythm of relaxation and how it thus obeys a “law” of evolution in the industrial context. Simondon’s theoretical approach, although similar to some aspects of methodologies of conception, emphasized a more accurate understanding of technical progress over possible operational applications. Simondon never intended to optimize the engineer’s tasks from an economic point of view and, in fact, his conception of technical progress can be considered as independent from the capitalistic trend of innovation. However, the philosophy of Simondon provides a better understanding of what is at stake theoretically in the modeling of laws of technical evolution. (shrink)
Nanotechnologies produce many different types of images but are characterized by the ones that allow us to ‘see the atoms’ despite the fact that objects at the nanoscale are smaller than the wavelength of light and hence are ‘invisible’. Images from scanning probe microscopy (SPM), like ‘The Beginning’, have played an emblematic role in the constitution of the field and are also more likely to be used in communication outside the scientific field. These images are made, selected, modified and evaluated (...) with respect to the information that they communicate. The ‘life cycle’ of these images implies the transduction of this information. Outside of the scientific field, however, they are no longer defined by this information, nor according to technical and scientific criteria, but by their aesthetic power, and they become associated with other images from other fields (art, advertisement, entertainment). This process creates a psycho-social ‘halo’ about ‘nano’ in the public perception, and raises ethical issues about nanotechnological communication via images. We will analyze the halo of the nano in this respect and propose a strategy for a reflexive ‘accommodation’ to the images at the nanoscale. (shrink)
Ferdinand Gonseth n'a cessé d'approfondir sa conception de la fonction épistémologique dévolue à l'analogie dans le cadre de sa doctrine de l'"idonéisme". Cette recherche passa toujours par une appropriation critique de la phénoménologie. L'auteur examine ici comment s'établit, dès 1936, un principe d'analogicité entre des plans d'abstraction et d'approfondissement phénoménotechnique qui s'éloignent de plus en plus de l'expérience perceptive ordinaire. La concordance est alors assurée par la notion de "schéma", qu'il reprend au "phénoménologiste" Kaufmann, mais à laquelle il confère d'autres (...) propriétés (notamment une structure de groupe). Gonseth introduit, par la suite, les notions d'"horizon de subjectivité" et d'"horizon d'objectivité", ce qui, tout en se démarquant des analyses d'Edmund Husserl, prolonge l'appropriation du vocabulaire phénoménologique. Dans un dernier temps, il adopta la notion de "référentiel", élaborée en rupture avec la philosophie du sujet, mais qui demeure encore attachée à des structures phénoménologiques. Son projet épistémologique encourage ainsi la pratique d'une "phénoménologie ouverte". (shrink)
