Skip to main content

Engineering Differences Between Natural, Social, and Artificial Kinds

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 365))

Abstract

My starting point is that discussions in philosophy about the ontology of technical artifacts ought to be informed by classificatory practices in engineering. Hence, the heuristic value of the natural-artificial distinction in engineering counts against arguments which favour abandoning the distinction in metaphysics. In this chapter, I present the philosophical equipment needed to analyse classificatory practices and then present a case study of engineering practice using these theoretical tools. More in particular, I make use of the Collectivist Account of Technical Artifacts (CAT) according to which there are different classificatory practices for natural, artificial, and social objects. I demonstrate that in the community studied, artificial kinds are marked by distinctive classificatory practices. The presence of these distinctive classificatory practices in engineering with regard to artificial kinds should inform discussions about the ontology of technical artifacts just as the distinctive classificatory practices in natural science inform discussions about natural kinds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Seminal works by Kripke (1980) and Putnam (1975) refer to biological kinds as natural kinds although more recent work has challenged this (Dupré 1993; Sober 1994, p. 163).

  2. 2.

    The view that engineers are in a position of authority with respect to the nature and our knowledge of artificial kinds (or, alternatively, technical artifacts) has been proffered by Garbacz (2012), Layton (1974), and Vincenti (1990).

  3. 3.

    I have switched here to talking about natural and social kind terms as opposed to natural and social kinds to stay in step with Kusch’s account. The distinction trades on a methodological commitment to analysing the words as they are used rather than metaphysical rumination upon the thing-in-itself.

  4. 4.

    Some legal systems contain a principle of ‘common-law marriage’ or ‘marriage by habit or repute’. In these cases, the married couple may be legally recognized as married even though no official marriage ceremony is performed or marriage contract is entered into. This does not count against Barnes’ account. We should read ‘referencing practices’ broadly to include the kinds of behavior that would, ceteris paribus, be required for a couple to be properly referred to as married.

  5. 5.

    The New York Times, May 21, 2010, p. A17.

  6. 6.

    I am not denying that often microscope users have not, before the investigation, known each and every natural entity that they will use the microscope to see. Discoveries have been made with microscopes, of course. Even so, it remains the case that one must have a general conception of what things in one’s environment are natural and what things are artificial.

  7. 7.

    The example of Madagascar as a case of reference switching is taken from Evans (1973). Evans’ suggestion is that when Marco Polo used the term to refer to the island we now call Madagascar, he intended to use it as it had been used by others, not introduce a new usage. The lesson I illustrate here is that once Polo did use it to refer to the island, and this stuck, the proper usage subsequently switches.

  8. 8.

    That is, a world in which oil rigs, wells, tools, and many other artificial things are used to extract hydrocarbons (oil, water, and gas) from rock formations below sea level according to the needs and requirements of society. Similarly, the distinction is present in the children’s game ‘rock, paper, scissors’ from which I borrowed the title of this paper although it requires some imagination on the part of the reader as ‘rock’ is not a typical candidate for natural kind and paper ought to be read as writing, document, certificate, money, or the like (and thus a social kind).

  9. 9.

    There were a total of 1708 references to ‘tool’ or ‘tools’ in a total of 914 pages or 1.87 references per page. Compare this frequency with the term ‘oil’ which one might expect to be a popular topic in petroleum engineering but in fact appears only 51 times in four of the selected documents. This equates to 0.09 references per page.

  10. 10.

    Serra (1984) is not one of the texts analysed.

  11. 11.

    Scientific Drilling International, Inc. (2009) is not one of the texts analysed.

  12. 12.

    A timeline of which incident is currently available online at http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature84446/. 2010. Deepwater Horizon: A Timeline of Events. Offshore Technology (Net Resources International).

  13. 13.

    The results are compiled in Table 12.1 in the Appendix.

References

  • Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. R. (2004). The ontology of artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 7, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. R. (2008). The shrinking difference between artifacts and natural objects. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 7(2), 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. (1983). Social life as bootstrapped induction. Sociology, 17(4), 524–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A., & Tobin, E. (2008). Natural kinds. In: The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Autumn 2008 ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/

  • Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (2007). Epistemic grace: Antirelativism as theology in disguise. Common Knowledge, 13, 250–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BP Amoco Upstream Technology Group. (1999). Directional survey handbook. Aberdeen: ODL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1977). Treatise on basic philosophy: Ontology I: The furniture of the world (Vol. 3). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling, T. (2005). Well logging and formation evaluation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Koninck, C. (2008). Reflections on the problem of indeterminism. In R. McInerny (Ed.), The writings of Charles de Koninck (Vol. 1, pp. 401–442). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1990). The interpretation of texts, people and other artifacts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(S), 177–194. (Reprinted in M. Losonsky (Ed.) Language and mind: Contemporary readings in philosophy and cognitive science. Blackwells.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (1973). The causal theory of names. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 47, 187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbacz, P. (2012). What can an armchair philosopher do for a “dirty-hands” engineer. Axiomathes, 22(3), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1991). A tradition of natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkinson, B. (2000). Keeper operation manual. (Reprinted 2008 as AdK, Casing multishot, Drillpipe multishot, Memory slickline, single shot orientation. Paso Robles: Scientific Drilling International Inc.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. E. (1974). The structure of scientific inference. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. S. (1997). Substance: Its nature and existence. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaulback, M. (2009). Memory production logging: Operations manual V1.6. Paso Robles: Scientific Drilling International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusch, M. (1997). The sociophilosophy of folk psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 28, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusch, M. (1999). Psychological knowledge: A social history and philosophy. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, E. T., Jr. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture, 15(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S. (2002). Darwinian metaphysics: Species and the question of essentialism. Synthese, 131, 191–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, J. C. (2011). Working the natural/artificial distinction. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 3(2), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. (1998). Cognition and tool use. Mind and Language, 13(4), 513–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. (2008). The shrinkage factor: Comment on Lynne Rudder Baker’s “The shrinking difference between artifacts and natural objects”. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 8(1), 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Mind, language and reality: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schyfter, P. (2009). The bootstrapped artefact: A collectivist account of technological ontology, functions, and normativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Drilling International, Inc. (2009). Basic survey manual. Paso Robles: Scientific Dilling International, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Drilling International, Inc. (2010). Production logging. Paso Robles: Scientific Drilling International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (2002). What I am not a property dualist. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(12), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serra, O. (1984). Fundamentals of well-log interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1994). Evolution, population thinking and essentialism. In E. Sober (Ed.), Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology (2nd ed., pp. 161–189). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomasson, A. L. (2007). Artifacts and human concepts. In S. Laurence & E. Margolis (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Essays on artifacts and their representations (pp. 52–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaesen, K., & van Amerongen, M. (2008). Optimality vs. intent: Limitations of Dennett’s artefact hermeneutics. Philosophical Psychology, 21(6), 779–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitrow, G. J. (1980). The natural philosophy of time (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The fieldwork research for this study was conducted primarily at the offices of Scientific Drilling International, Inc. in Thailand and other parts of Southeast Asia as part of my PhD dissertation. I would like to thank everyone there who let me observe their day-to-day work, interview them, and who instructed me in the basics of their work. I would also like to thank engineers at Chevron, Halliburton, and Schlumberger for allowing me to interview them and for their feedback on my project and development of the five referencing categories. I thank Maarten Franssen, Peter Kroes, and Pieter Vermaas for the invitation to contribute a chapter to this volume and for their astute comments and criticisms along the way. I would also like to thank David Bloor, Martin Kusch, Duncan Pritchard, and Pablo Schyfter for their insightful feedback and conversations on this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric T. Kerr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Table 12.1 ‘Tool reference’ in five petroleum engineering texts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kerr, E.T. (2014). Engineering Differences Between Natural, Social, and Artificial Kinds. In: Franssen, M., Kroes, P., Reydon, T.A.C., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) Artefact Kinds. Synthese Library, vol 365. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00801-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics