Artefactual Norms

Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 9)

Abstract

There is a long-standing tradition of characterizing artifacts in terms of purposes. Artifacts are physical entities, subject to the laws of nature, but what makes them different from stones and clouds—that is, what makes them artifacts—is the fact that they are intentionally produced and used by human beings to realize certain goals (see, e.g., Simon 1969; Hilpinen 2004; Kroes and Meijers 2006; or much earlier, see Aristotle’ s Physica). Consequently, an evaluation of an artifact is typically cast in terms of, what von Wright (1963a) calls, its instrumental goodness. An artifact is good if it indeed has the capacity to produce a certain practical end, bad otherwise.

Keywords

Wind Turbine Switching Cost Functional Norm Artefact Design Offshore Wind Turbine 
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.

References

  1. Baird, D. 2004. Thing knowledge – A philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blind, K. 2004. The economics of standards: Theory, evidence, policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  3. Bratman, M.E. 1987. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bucciarelli, L. 1996. Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Corbett, J., M. Dooner, J. Meleka, and C. Pym. 1991. Design for manufacture: Strategies, principles and techniques. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Dancy, J. 2004. Ethics without principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Ridder, J. 2006. Mechanistic artefact explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37(1): 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vries, H.J. 1999. Standardization – A business approach to the role of national standardization organizations. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Dikker, F. 1995. A knowledge-based approach to evaluation of norms in engineering design. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente.Google Scholar
  10. Dym, C., and P. Little. 2005. Engineering design: A material and processing approach. McGraw- Hill Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Farrell, J., and C. Shapiro. 1988. Dynamic competition with switching costs. RAND Journal of Economics 19: 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franssen, M. 2006. The normativity of artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37(1): 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardiner, P., and R. Rothwell. 1986. Design management strategies. In Technology strategy and the firm: Management and public policy, ed. M. Dodgson. Harlow: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Gasch, R., and J. Twele. 2002. Wind power plants: Fundamentals, design, construction and operation. London: James and James.Google Scholar
  15. George, S., and A. Weimerskirch. 1998. Total quality management: Strategies and techniques proven at today’s most successful companies. New York: Wiley Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Hardcastle, V.G. 2002. On the normativity of functions. In Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology, ed. A. Ariew, R. Cummins, and M. Perlman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hilpinen, R. 2004. Artefact. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artefact/. Last accessed 3 Feb 2010.
  18. Kroes, P. 2006. Coherence of structural and functional descriptions of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37(1): 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroes, P., and A. Meijers. 2006. The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kühn, M. 2002. Offshore wind farms. In Wind power plants: Fundamentals, design, construction and operation, eds. R. Gasch, and J. Twele, 365–384. London: James and James.Google Scholar
  21. Manwell, J., J. McGowan, and A. Rogers. 2002. Wind energy explained. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neander, K. 2004. Teleological theories of mental content. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-teleological/. Last accessed 3 Feb 2010.
  23. Norman, D.A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Omachanu, V., and J. Ross. 1998. Principles of total quality. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Penev, K. (1996). Design of disassembly systems: A systematic approach. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  26. Ram, A., J. Deckers, and A. Stevels. 1998. Recyclability of consumer electronics – Design for non-disassembly. In Proceedings of Care Innovation 1998, ed. B. Kopacek, 137–147. Vienna: Austrian Society for Systems Engineering and Automation.Google Scholar
  27. Raz, J. 1975. Practical reason and norms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Simon, H. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Siuru, B. 1990. From scrap heap to showroom. Mechanical Engineering, November.Google Scholar
  30. Stark, J. 2004. Product lifecycle management. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Vaesen, K. 2006. How norms in technology ought to be interpreted. Techné 10(1): 97–115.Google Scholar
  32. Vaesen, K. 2008. A philosophical essay on artefacts and norms. Simon Stevin Series in the Philosophy of Technology. Ph.D. thesis Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Vermaas, P.E. 2006. The physical connection: Engineering function ascriptions to technical artefacts and their components. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37(1): 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von Weizsäcker, C.C. 1982. Staatliche Regulierung – positive und normative Theorie. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik 2: 325–343.Google Scholar
  35. von Wright, G.H. 1963a. The varieties of goodness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  36. von Wright, G.H. 1963b. Norm and action. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Walton, D.N. 1990. Practical reasoning: Goal-driven, knowledge-based action-guiding argumentation. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoventhe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations