What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
sman123
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 10th, 2019, 10:45 am

What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by sman123 »

Hello everybody,

First post. Glad to be here!

People - from the most average man on the street to some of the world's most renowned technologists - keep reciting this mantra - "technology is neutral"/"tools are neutral" (and the corollary of it: it depends only on the people). You know, the classical "guns don't kill people, but people do" - the core of instrumentalist approach of technology.

What I wasn't able to find ANYWHERE - neither in this approach, nor in the critics of it - is a critic of the very concept of neutrality, or at least something like a "cultural history" of neutrality.

Where and when does the concept of "tool neutrality" come from? Who formulated it for the first time and what were his premises? So, how can tools be "neutral", after all, while us, their creators, aren't?

Any reference in this matter is much appreciated!
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Anecdotally, my personal experience doesn't match your claim that the mantra "technology is neutral" and/or "tools are neutral" are so frequently recited. I don't recall ever hearing those particular expressions before. So I find the premise doubtful, but for anecdotal reasons. Though, it also is actually subjective too since whether or not something is considered frequent is subjective.

With all that said, I would take those mantras to be the generalized principle for (as an example) the phrase, "guns don't kill people; people kill people." The same concept can be generalized to all tools not guns and generalized to actions in general not just killing. Granted, that concept is far from a given. Needless to say, frequency of statement is not evidence of truth.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Count Lucanor »

sman123 wrote: February 11th, 2019, 12:02 am Hello everybody,

First post. Glad to be here!

People - from the most average man on the street to some of the world's most renowned technologists - keep reciting this mantra - "technology is neutral"/"tools are neutral" (and the corollary of it: it depends only on the people). You know, the classical "guns don't kill people, but people do" - the core of instrumentalist approach of technology.

What I wasn't able to find ANYWHERE - neither in this approach, nor in the critics of it - is a critic of the very concept of neutrality, or at least something like a "cultural history" of neutrality.

Where and when does the concept of "tool neutrality" come from? Who formulated it for the first time and what were his premises? So, how can tools be "neutral", after all, while us, their creators, aren't?

Any reference in this matter is much appreciated!
I don't remember the neutrality of technology being specifically claimed so often, but I do remember the critique of the assumed neutrality of technology, which perhaps gives ground to the perception that there's this mantra. Also, Habermas is said to posit that technology is an instrumental nonsocial rationality, the technical action which by itself is neutral, inside a broader instrumental action.

In general, it seems to me that the "cultural history of neutrality" is implied in all critiques of modernity and in the development of the concept of ideology. In other words, the apparent neutrality of the prevailing ideas in society are revealed as socially determined by the dialectics of power.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Consul »

Is the sort of neutrality in question ethical/moral neutrality?

"One important general theme in the ethics of technology is the question whether technology is value-laden. Some authors have maintained that technology is value-neutral, in the sense that technology is just a neutral means to an end, and accordingly can be put to good or bad use (e.g., Pitt 2000). This view might have some plausibility in as far as technology is considered to be just a bare physical structure. Most philosophers of technology, however, agree that technological development is a goal-oriented process and that technological artifacts by definition have certain functions, so that they can be used for certain goals but not, or far more difficulty or less effectively, for other goals. This conceptual connection between technological artifacts, functions and goals makes it hard to maintain that technology is value-neutral. Even if this point is granted, the value-ladenness of technology can be construed in a host of different ways."

The Philosophy of Technology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/

For example, it can hardly be argued that the development of torture devices takes place in a moral vacuum.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
sman123
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 10th, 2019, 10:45 am

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by sman123 »

Consul, my suspicion is that one can not talk about the neutrality of technology before creating the necessary conditions for a radically divided and abstract thinking, in which the mind is supposed to be objective and outside the world (the world also including the mind's products, which are tools)- which, bluntly put, would be synthetized by the cartesian view. I guess this is the only way one can start separating the "neutral" tools from their causes, effects or even unintended consequences. So, I'd say this would be a cartesian-biased view, pretty hard to find in Ancient Greek philosophy. This, I guess, would explain both the "non-neutrality" of the Ancient World and the mainstream "neutralism" of the contemporary philosophy of technology.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by LuckyR »

sman123 wrote: February 11th, 2019, 12:02 am Hello everybody,

First post. Glad to be here!

People - from the most average man on the street to some of the world's most renowned technologists - keep reciting this mantra - "technology is neutral"/"tools are neutral" (and the corollary of it: it depends only on the people). You know, the classical "guns don't kill people, but people do" - the core of instrumentalist approach of technology.

What I wasn't able to find ANYWHERE - neither in this approach, nor in the critics of it - is a critic of the very concept of neutrality, or at least something like a "cultural history" of neutrality.

Where and when does the concept of "tool neutrality" come from? Who formulated it for the first time and what were his premises? So, how can tools be "neutral", after all, while us, their creators, aren't?

Any reference in this matter is much appreciated!
The origin of the concept occurs when governments seek to limit in some way a product, presumably because of some perceived negative aspect of said product. Folks who profit from the manufacturing and distribution of these can be predicted to trot out the products don't need to be regulated, since it is the misuse of the product that is responsible for the negative. This happens when the negative can't be denied outright.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

I'm just guessing, but I would bet the concept predates the existence of governments, so I doubt goverments are the literal origin of the concept.

I would imagine the concept is about as old as tools are. As soon as humans had tools, I'd bet those humans started wondering, asking, and answering (in different disagreeing ways) who among the creator, the user, and the tool itself is responsible for the good or bad results of the tool's usage and the consequences thereof.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Eduk »

Er neutral just means something which isn't taking sides. In the case of inanimate objects they can't take sides. Doesn't seem like much need to write a book to argue this point as it is the definition of the words.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by LuckyR »

Scott wrote: February 12th, 2019, 10:32 am I'm just guessing, but I would bet the concept predates the existence of governments, so I doubt goverments are the literal origin of the concept.

I would imagine the concept is about as old as tools are. As soon as humans had tools, I'd bet those humans started wondering, asking, and answering (in different disagreeing ways) who among the creator, the user, and the tool itself is responsible for the good or bad results of the tool's usage and the consequences thereof.
The concept? Yes. But the injection of the concept into the public sphere through mass media (to the point that we are speaking of it now), needs a driving force and 13 billion dollars a year in jeopardy provides a driving force.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
SnarkyBuddha
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: December 29th, 2016, 2:40 pm

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by SnarkyBuddha »

Tools are not neutral. They are incredibly powerful with both the promise of utility and risk. Significant upside and downside contained within the same tool do not 'cancel out' to then become neutral. That said, a tool is always an extension of the user, and it hardly makes sense to talk about tools as if their ethical import is contained solely within their physical boundaries. Responsibility is the domain of humans - it is we that have the capacity to build representations of our present in order to (attempt to) predict the future. Yet a tool is partly the instantiation of human intent, and so is no mere object. Guns don't kill people, people kill people - both in the sense that it requires a human to pull the trigger or create the circumstances for a serious accident, but also in the sense that 'gun' is an extension of human imagination, and that any such thing exists is due to the collective will of persons applying themselves to the problem of 'how to make objects move very fast as projectiles to cause damage to organic structures, usually to procure food or defend/aggress against other human groups'. Which presupposes the desire to hunt animals or hurt people. If these desires did not exist, the tool would regress to mere object and would lose its meaning. Imagine an advanced alien race come to earth and doing archaeological work - their experience of gun would be like that just described, robbed of its meaning as a tool it becomes very hard to grasp at a basic level.

Perception is neither neutral nor objective. It is guided heavily by value-structures which are themselves partially evolved partially cultural or learned abstractions of action patterns and their effects over massive time scales. So when I see a 'gun' what I really see is 'thing I can use to hunt animals or hurt people' or perhaps 'thing that reminds me of my grandfather's role in WWII' or 'symbol of American independence' etc., and only secondarily do the object's particular physical attributes come into play. Though this is complex too as form often dictates function.

If the aim of making a 'tools are neutral' claim is to abdicate human responsibility for the tool's effects, then I think it is a foolish move to make. Especially considering algorithms in internet marketing where the true effects of the tool very quickly get lost in the complexity of the system. Complexity is no excuse - we always have the choice to walk away from an opportunity given that risks are impossible to quantify and totally unknown.

See any Jordan Peterson YouTube lectures to get a sense of where my arguments regarding perception, action, and value come from. Read Nassim Taleb books for a very sensible approach to risk that moves away from prediction to the construction of antifragile systems (hence tools that are less likely to run off an kill us in the future).
User avatar
Intellectual_Savnot
Posts: 97
Joined: November 26th, 2018, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Wokeville, California
Contact:

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Intellectual_Savnot »

Tools are neutral: When given the two possible outcomes of "smash face" and "lie on ground" the tool will be no more inclined to either outcome. However, the functionality of the tool is very sub-neutral. A hammer is very much more useful and functions substantially more effectively in situations where things need to be hit. It is in its proper form. Algorithmic system interacting sequences, or codes, are very not neutral. These will always act a certain way in a certain environment without fail until acted upon by an outside force. They will also always act. When face with the "whether to do" of an inappropriate YouTube video, hammer does not even respond, it has too little functionality to be anything relative to the situation. However, a YouTube algorithm is already predesignated to be inclined towards a certain outcome and will take prompt corrective action against this content. It is not neutral because it was designed to act and to target in certain manners. Code is not neutral.
User avatar
Intellectual_Savnot
Posts: 97
Joined: November 26th, 2018, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Wokeville, California
Contact:

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Intellectual_Savnot »

Based on technicality, all matter is neutral, and as such so is code. All acts only as a reactionary impulse. The only non neutral things are those that can consider, decide, and make opinion.
User avatar
Skydude
Posts: 67
Joined: April 18th, 2016, 2:55 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel kant
Location: Haleiwa hawaii

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Skydude »

Psychology will tell us, the presence of what we call A tool will change the choices and perceptions people have in relevant situations.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by LuckyR »

Intellectual_Savnot wrote: February 21st, 2019, 2:33 pm Tools are neutral: When given the two possible outcomes of "smash face" and "lie on ground" the tool will be no more inclined to either outcome. However, the functionality of the tool is very sub-neutral. A hammer is very much more useful and functions substantially more effectively in situations where things need to be hit. It is in its proper form. Algorithmic system interacting sequences, or codes, are very not neutral. These will always act a certain way in a certain environment without fail until acted upon by an outside force. They will also always act. When face with the "whether to do" of an inappropriate YouTube video, hammer does not even respond, it has too little functionality to be anything relative to the situation. However, a YouTube algorithm is already predesignated to be inclined towards a certain outcome and will take prompt corrective action against this content. It is not neutral because it was designed to act and to target in certain manners. Code is not neutral.
Tools can lead to bias in a particular direction, ie they are not neutral. Take suicide for example. If the tool of guns has a 85% lethality rate (the highest of any method) and the tool of drug OD/poisoning has a 1.5% lethality rate, then the efficiency of the tool of guns raises the death rate of suicide. Thus while the observation that guns don't cause suicidal ideation is correct, it misses the point that guns drastically change the outcome of suicide attempt.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Skydude
Posts: 67
Joined: April 18th, 2016, 2:55 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel kant
Location: Haleiwa hawaii

Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

Post by Skydude »

LuckyR wrote: February 22nd, 2019, 2:55 pm
Intellectual_Savnot wrote: February 21st, 2019, 2:33 pm Tools are neutral: When given the two possible outcomes of "smash face" and "lie on ground" the tool will be no more inclined to either outcome. However, the functionality of the tool is very sub-neutral. A hammer is very much more useful and functions substantially more effectively in situations where things need to be hit. It is in its proper form. Algorithmic system interacting sequences, or codes, are very not neutral. These will always act a certain way in a certain environment without fail until acted upon by an outside force. They will also always act. When face with the "whether to do" of an inappropriate YouTube video, hammer does not even respond, it has too little functionality to be anything relative to the situation. However, a YouTube algorithm is already predesignated to be inclined towards a certain outcome and will take prompt corrective action against this content. It is not neutral because it was designed to act and to target in certain manners. Code is not neutral.
Tools can lead to bias in a particular direction, ie they are not neutral. Take suicide for example. If the tool of guns has a 85% lethality rate (the highest of any method) and the tool of drug OD/poisoning has a 1.5% lethality rate, then the efficiency of the tool of guns raises the death rate of suicide. Thus while the observation that guns don't cause suicidal ideation is correct, it misses the point that guns drastically change the outcome of suicide attempt.
I am currently viewing tools as being nonneutral for the psychological effects they can have on humans. For example if I have to put A complicated object together with just my hands I may be too lazy and give up, while if I have my toolset I will most likely finish the job.

I disagree with the claim that weapons and other objects do not cause certain ideations or fantasies, myself and many others have had suicidal or violent thoughts just looking at certain objects.

Now if your definition of cause of suicidal ideation is purely biological(such as purely the firing of neurons or chemical imbalance) then disregard the previous statement.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021