Skip to main content
Log in

Defending Extension Theory: A Response to Kiran and Verbeek

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a recent publication in this journal, Asle Kiran and Peter-Paul Verbeek (hereafter K&V) argue that extension theory and the notion of trust it implies are flawed. In this commentary, I defend extension theory against their critique. I first briefly introduce extension theory, then reconstruct K&V’s five arguments against extension theory and demonstrate that four of their five arguments are misplaced.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. An anonymous reviewer pointed this out.

References

  • Brey, P. (2000). Technology as extension of human faculties. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Metaphysics, epistemology and technology. Research in philosophy and technology, vol. 19. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2007). Reinventing ourselves: The plasticity of embodiment, sensing, and mind. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(3), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Preester, H. (2010). Technology and the body: The (im)possibilities of re-embodiment. Foundations of Science, 16(2–3), 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feibleman, J. K. (1967). The philosophy of tools. Social Forces, 45(3), 329–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlen, A. (2003). A philosophical–anthropological perspective on technology. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology. The technological condition: An anthology (pp. 213–220). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiran, A. H., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2010). Trusting our selves to technology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23, 409–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J., Harris, C. B., Keil, P. G., & Barnier, A. J. (2010). The psychology of memory, extended cognition, and socially distributed remembering. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 521–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Asle Kiran, John Sutton, Sadjad Soltanzadeh, as well as two anonymous reviewers for commenting on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Heersmink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heersmink, R. Defending Extension Theory: A Response to Kiran and Verbeek. Philos. Technol. 25, 121–128 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0035-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0035-6

Keywords

Navigation