Object lessons: towards an epistemology of technoscience

Discussions of technoscience are bringing to light that scientific journals feature very different knowledge claims. At one end of the spectrum, there is the scientific claim that a hypothesis needs to be reevaluated in light of new evidence. At the other end of the spectrum, there is the technoscientific claim that some new measure of control has been achieved in a laboratory. The latter claim has not received sufficient attention as of yet. In what sense is the achievement of control genuine knowledge in its own right; how is this knowledge acquired; and publicly validated? Notions of tacit or embodied knowledge, of knowledge by acquaintance, of engineering or thing knowledge, and reconstructions of ability or skill take us only part of the way towards answering such questions. The epistemology of technoscience needs to account for the acquisition and demonstration of a public knowledge of control that does not consist in the holding of propositions, even though it is usually communicated in writing: Technoscientific knowledge is, firstly, objective and public insofar as it is exhibited and documented. Secondly, it presupposes a specific context of technology and expertise. Thirdly, it is communicable, even where the achieved capability itself is not. Knowledge of control entails, fourthly, a knowledge of causal relationships, and it sediments itself, fifthly, as a habit of action in the sense proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce.

[1]  A. Müller The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation , 1977 .

[2]  Alfred Nordmann,et al.  Science in the Context of Technology , 2011 .

[3]  P. McEuen,et al.  A tunable carbon nanotube electromechanical oscillator , 2004, Nature.

[4]  Edmund L. Gettier Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? , 1963, Arguing About Knowledge.

[5]  K. Knorr-Cetina The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1985 .

[6]  Marco A. Cabassi,et al.  Temperature effects on conduction through a molecular junction , 2004 .

[7]  Paul K. Moser Empirical Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology , 1986 .

[8]  C. Wright Representing and Intervening , 1985 .

[9]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[10]  J. Ziman,et al.  Public knowledge. An essay concerning the social dimension of science , 1970, Medical History.

[11]  Johannes Lenhard,et al.  Mit dem Unerwarteten rechnen? Computersimulation und Nanowissenschaft , 2006 .

[12]  Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent,et al.  Matters of Interest: The Objects of Research in Science and Technoscience , 2011 .

[13]  Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? or: Who's Got the Paper? , 1965, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[14]  R.A.L. Jones What has nanotechnology taught us about contemporary technoscience , 2011 .

[15]  Charles S. Peirce,et al.  The essential Peirce , 1992 .

[16]  C. Peirce How to Make Our Ideas Clear , 2011, The Nature of Truth.

[17]  Hugh Lacey,et al.  Reflections on science and technoscience , 2012 .

[18]  Martin Carrier Knowledge Gain and Practical Use: Models in Pure and Applied Research , 2004 .

[19]  Martin Carrier,et al.  Science in the context of application , 2011 .

[20]  A. N. Cleland Nanophysics: Carbon nanotubes tune up , 2004, Nature.

[21]  Karl R. Popper,et al.  Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject , 1968 .

[22]  I. Hacking,et al.  Representing and Intervening. , 1986 .

[23]  D. Roberts,et al.  The Essential Peirce , 2001 .

[24]  A. Nordmann VorSchrift – Signaturen der Visualisierungskunst , 2006 .

[25]  S. Woolgar,et al.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1982 .

[26]  W. Krohn Ästhetik in der Wissenschaft : interdisziplinärer Diskurs über das Gestalten und Darstellen von Wissen , 2006 .