Abstract
[2]In this brief presentation a crucial technological innovation of the early twentieth century – the invention of the triode thermionic valve – is used as a springboard for a historically informed discussion of the complex interrelations of theory and praxis in the generation of technological novelty. This episode was chosen for its critical role in triggering a whole chain of developments that culminated in the growing network of technologies and economic infrastructures that underpin our so-called “information society” and the evolving role of “technoscience.” This represents a starting point in a broadening cascade of innovations that led to the rise of television, digital computers and the expanding web of artifacts that shape our daily existence today. In the present era of technoscience, scientific and technological research are so closely entangled that it is hard to discern their respective natures and interrelations. Nevertheless, it is possible to partially distinguish both their common characteristics and their contrasting differences (i.e. in goals, cognitive styles, methods, etc.). In this context, some reflections are put forward on the activity of “tinkering” as a cognitive instrument (a form of what Peirce called Abduction) in the generation of technological novelty.
About the author
Eliseo Fernández (1935–2017) was born and educated in Argentina. For almost five decades, he worked at the Linda Hall Library of Science and Technology as a scientific consultant and taught at the University of Missouri in the physics department. He lectured and published widely on topics in the philosophy and history of science and on the thought of C. S. Peirce. Among the founders of biosemiotics, he was also a leading contributor to this journal.
References
Aitken, Hugh G. J. 1985. The continuous wave: Technology and American radio, 1900–1932. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400854608Search in Google Scholar
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, Sacha Loeve, Alfred Nordmann, Astrid Schwarz. 2011. Matters of interest: The objects of research in science and technoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42. 365–383.10.1007/s10838-011-9172-ySearch in Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario. 1966. Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture 7(3). 329–347.10.2307/3101932Search in Google Scholar
Caramez Carlotto, Maria. 2012. Reflections on the historical, epistemological, and social meaning of technoscience. Scientiæ Studia 10: special issue. 129–139.10.1590/S1678-31662012000500008Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Eliseo. 2008. Signs and instruments: The convergence of Aristotelian and Kantian intuitions in biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 1(3). 347–359.10.1007/s12304-008-9011-7Search in Google Scholar
Forman, Paul. 2007. The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity and of ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology 23(1/2). 1–152.10.1080/07341510601092191Search in Google Scholar
Forman, Paul. 2010. (Re-)cognizing postmodernity: Helps for historians – of science especially. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 33(2). 1–19.10.1002/bewi.201001464Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Marie Boas. 1999. Recollections of a history of science guinea pig. Isis 90. S68–S83.10.1086/384608Search in Google Scholar
Hong, Sungook. 1998. Unfaithful offspring? Technologies and their trajectories. Perspectives on Science 6(3). 259–287.10.1080/0907676X.1998.9961340Search in Google Scholar
Hong, Sungook. 2001. Wireless: From Marconi's black-box to the Audion Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7255.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hou, Wybo. 2009. The nature of technological knowledge. In Anthonie Meijers (ed.) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences 309–350. Burlington, MA.: Elsevier.,10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50016-1Search in Google Scholar
Jacob, François. 1977. Evolution and tinkering. Science 196. 1161–1166.10.1126/science.860134Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Jacob, François. 2001. Complexity and tinkering. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 929. 71–73.10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05708.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Kroes, Peter and Anthonie Meijers. 2006. The dual nature of technical artifacts. Studies in History of Philosophy of Science 37. 1–4.10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.001Search in Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meijers, Anthonie (ed.). 2009. Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Nightingale, Paul. 2009. Tacit knowledge and engineering design. In Anthonie Meijers (ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences 351–374. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50017-3Search in Google Scholar
Pitt, Joseph C. 2001. What engineers know. Techné. Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology 5(3). 1–7.10.1007/978-94-007-0820-4_15Search in Google Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2009. Science, technology and the science–technology relationship. In Anthonie Meijers (ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences 65–91. Burlington, MA.: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50007-0Search in Google Scholar
Vincenti, Walter G. 1990. What engineers know and how they know it Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston