Technological Explanation

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 3)

Abstract

The structure of the chapter is as follows: after a discussion of the need for a theory of technological explanation, I differentiate technological explanation from physical, teleological, psychological, and social explanation. Attention is then directed to answering questions as a means of providing technological explanations. A distinction between internal and external audiences is also introduced to provide a means for characterizing different kinds of explanations in terms of the audiences to which they are directed and the kinds of questions which when answered provide the appropriate explanation. Next the concept “system” is introduced.

Keywords

Scientific Explanation Internal Combustion Engine Official Investigation Social Technology Internal Audience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bucciarelli, L.L. 1994. Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carlat, D. 2008. “Mind Readers”. Wired, June 2008. 120–128.Google Scholar
  3. Cummins, R. 1975. “Functional Analysis”. The Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elster, J. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hempel, C. 1948. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”. Philosophy of Science 15, 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hemple, C. 1965. “Studies in the Logic of Functional Explanation”. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Hughes, T. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kroes, P. 1998. “Technological Explanations: The relation between structure.and function of technological objects.” Society for Philosophy and Technology, 3,http://http:scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v3n3/KROES.html.Google Scholar
  9. Kroes, P. 2001. “Technical Functions as Dispositions: A Critical Assessment”. Techne, Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 5,http://http:scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v5n3/KROES.html.Google Scholar
  10. Pitt, J.C. 1988. Theories of Explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pitt, J.C. 2000. Thinking About Technology. Originally published by Seven Bridges Press, New York, NY, now at http://www.phil.vt.edu/HTML/people/pittjoseph.htm.Google Scholar
  12. Ridder, J. de. 2007. Reconstructing Design, Explaining Artifacts: Philosophical Reflections on the Design and Explanation of Technical Artifacts, Simon Stevin Series in the Philosophy of Technology, Vol. 4 Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Department of PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  13. Rogers Commission report. 1986. Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident.Google Scholar
  14. Salmon, W. 1989. “Forty Years of Explanation”. In Kitcher P. and Salmon W.C. eds., Scientific Explanation. Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Shew, A. 2007. Beaver Dams, Spider Webs, and the Sticky Wicket: An Investigation into What Counts as Technology and What Counts as Knowledge. MS Thesis, Science and Technology Studies Graduate Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  16. Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Vermaas, P. and Garbacz, P. 2009. “Functional Decomposition and the Function Part-Whole Relationship in Engineering”. In Meijers A. Editor-in-Chief. The Handbook of the Philosophy of Technology and the Engineering Science. Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Vincenti, W. 1990. What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Wimsatt, W.C. 1980. “Teleology and the logical structure of function Statements”. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 3: 1–80.Google Scholar
  20. Wimsatt, W.C. 2002. “Functional Organization, Analogy, and Inference”. In Ariew A. ed., Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 173–221.Google Scholar
  21. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations