Technical Artifacts: Which approach is best?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.12641Keywords:
Technical artifacts, philosophy of technology, dual approach, Dual Nature of Technical ArtifactsAbstract
The paper describes the strengths and weaknesses of the three dominant approaches in the ontological theories of technical artifacts, which are the approaches: (1) functional, (2) intentional and (3) dual. I will show it is not appropriate to focus solely on “functions” or “intentions” to formulate a general theory of artifacts. The dual approach should not miss out on material and structural elements, but must also be consistent with symbolic elements and context in which humans live.
Downloads
References
BRONCANO, F. (2001) Mundos artificiales. Filosofía del cambio tecnológico. Barcelona. Paidós.
BRONCANO, F. (2008) In media res: cultura material y artefactos. ArtefaCToS. Madrid. Universidad Carlos III. Vol. 1, núm. 1, noviembre, págs. 18-32.
CUMMINS, R. (1975) Functional Analysis. The Journal of Philosophy. Nueva York. Columbia University Press. Vol. 72, núm. 20, págs. 741-765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2024640
DOMÍNGUEZ, R. (2010) El diseño industrial en la sociedad de consumo: Su rol en la configuración funcional y en la representación estética de los artefactos. Medellín. Fondo Editorial ITM.
ELDER, C. (2004) Real Natures and Familiar Objects. Cambridge. The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5792.001.0001
HILPINEN, R. (2004) Artifact. En: Edward N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Sitio web: Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy. En: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/. Recuperado:
abril 2009.
KROES, P. (2002) Design Methodology and the Nature of Technical Artifacts. Design Studies. Ámsterdam. Elsevier. Vol. 23, núm. 3, págs. 287-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00039-4
KROES, P. y MEIJERS, A. (2002). Reply to Critics [Carl Mitcham, David Baird y Daniel Rothbart]. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. Blacksburg. Virginia Tech Press. Vol. 6, núm. 2, invierno, págs. 34-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2002626
KROES, P. y MEIJERS, A. (2006). The dual nature of technical artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Londres y Ámsterdam. Elsevier. Vol. 37, núm 1, marzo, págs. 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.001
KUSCH, M. (1997) «The Sociophilosophy of Folk Psychology». Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Londres y Ámsterdam. Elsevier., núm, 28, , págs. 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(96)00012-X
LAWLER, D. (2010a) «La creación de clases artefactuales». En: C. Lorenzano y P. Lorenzano, eds. Libro de abstracts y resúmenes. III Congreso Iberoamericano de Filosofía de la Ciencia y la Tecnología.
Buenos Aires. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero (EDUNTREF). Págs. 600-602.
LAWLER, D. (2010b) «Intenciones y artificios». Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad (CTS). Buenos Aires. Vol.5, núm. 14, abril, págs. 117-124.
MILLIKAN, R. G. (1984) Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge. The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001
MITCHAM, C.(1989) ¿Qué es la filosofía de la tecnología? (trad. C. C. Stingl). Barcelona. Anthropos.
MITCHAM, C. (2002) Do Artifacts Have Dual Natures? Two Points of Commentary on the Delft Project. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. Blacksburg. Virginia Tech Press. Vol. 6, núm. 2, invierno, págs. 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2002623
NEANDER, K. (1991) Function as Selected Effects: The Computational Analyst’s Defense. Philosophy of Science. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 58, núm. 2, junio, págs. 168-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/289610
PARENTE, D. (2010) «La idea de malfunción en artefactos técnicos». Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad (CTS). Buenos Aires. Vol.5, núm. 14, abril, págs. 1-8.
PRESTON, B. (2006) Social Context and Artifact function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Londres y Ámsterdam. Elsevier. Vol. 37, núm 1, marzo, págs. 37-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.005
SCHEELE, M. (2006) Function and Use Technical Artifacts: Social Conditions of Function Ascription. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Londres y Ámsterdam. Elsevier. Vol. 37, núm 1, marzo, págs. 23-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.004
SCHYFTER, P. (2009) The Bootstrapped Artifact: A Collectivist Account of Technological Ontology, Functions, and Normativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Londres y Ámsterdam. Elsevier». Vol. 40, núm. 1, marzo, págs. 102-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.006
SEARLE, J.(1997) La construcción de la realidad social. Barcelona. Paidós.
SIMON, H. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge. The MIT Press.Álvaro David Monterroza Ríos
THOMASSON, A. (2007) Artifacts and Human Concepts. En: E. Margolis y S. Laurence. Creations of the Mind. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Págs. 52-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199250981.003.0004
VEGA, J. (2007) La sustancialidad de los artefactos. En: Diego Parente, ed. Encrucijadas de la técnica: Ensayos sobre tecnología, sociedad y valores. La Plata. Universidad Nacional de La Plata (EDULP).
VEGA, J. (2010) Estado de la cuestión: Filosofía de la tecnología. Theoria. País Vasco. Universidad del País Vasco. Núm. 66, págs. 323- 341.
VERMAAS, P. y WYBO H. (2006) Technical Functions: A drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Londres y Ámsterdam. Elsevier. Vol. 37, núm 1, marzo, págs. 5-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.002
WRIGHT, L. (1976) Teleological Explanations: An Etiological Analysis of Goals and Functions. Berkeley. University of California Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Álvaro David Monterroza Ríos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.
