Difference between revisions of "325--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
While I think Winner's article is relevant to the times, I feel the statistics are a bit vague at times. Yes the number of tomato growers have decreased from the thousands to hundreds but how many of them actually use this tomato harvester? And are the farms all big business companies? Also, in Mackenzie's article, I dislike the thought of having to ask "Best for whom?" Does this question really fundamentally matter? Can't something be just as good for someone as it is for another? Does something have to specifically be best for only one category of person or can one aspect of that thing be best for one person but another aspect best for the next? Just because a person is a woman (to use Mackenzie's example) does not mean that person will automatically agree on a technology with all other women. --Lauren Milner | While I think Winner's article is relevant to the times, I feel the statistics are a bit vague at times. Yes the number of tomato growers have decreased from the thousands to hundreds but how many of them actually use this tomato harvester? And are the farms all big business companies? Also, in Mackenzie's article, I dislike the thought of having to ask "Best for whom?" Does this question really fundamentally matter? Can't something be just as good for someone as it is for another? Does something have to specifically be best for only one category of person or can one aspect of that thing be best for one person but another aspect best for the next? Just because a person is a woman (to use Mackenzie's example) does not mean that person will automatically agree on a technology with all other women. --Lauren Milner | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found MacKenzie’s discussion of “technological determinism” to be interesting. I think it’s a strange idea that there could be only one predetermined way for a technology to advance, and that it does so without any influence from society. I do, however, understand how the technology that succeeds could be considered to be “intrinsically” superior to the technology that “fails.” Hindsight is 20/20, after all. Of course, MacKenzie points out that it’s not necessarily superiority, but rather the early adoption of one technology and the improvements made to it that lead to creating a lasting technology. It sort of reminds me of the PC vs. Mac debate. Isn’t there talk about the PC dying out or something? If that’s the case, it’s likely that the Mac will be considered “intrinsically” superior by future generations. But then there are people who already think that. --Taylor Brann | ||
| + | |||
| + | Though the essays came from different disciplines, it was interesting to see how they overlapped. For instance, both the philosopher Winner and the sociologist MacKenzie argue against the idea of technological determinism. Historian Lerman and sociologist Latuor challenge the perceptions and handling of technology. Lerman feels that “technological knowledge” consists of simpler things than running machinery and computers, while Latour is disgruntled at the way science and technology studies are separated into categories by critics. --Taylor Brann | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are also different interpretations of technology. Leo Marx believes the rise of technology is represented in the replacement of simple tools with electrically and chemically powered things, as well as the replacement of family-owned firms with centralized corporations. Lerman believes that haying and sewing, simpler tasks often learned from family, involve as much “technological knowledge” as operating heavy machinery and programming a computer. -Taylor Brann | ||
