What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
- sman123
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: February 10th, 2019, 10:45 am
What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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!
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5784
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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.
"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.
- 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?
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.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!
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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
"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.
- sman123
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: February 10th, 2019, 10:45 am
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7981
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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.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!
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5784
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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 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.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7981
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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.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.
- SnarkyBuddha
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: December 29th, 2016, 2:40 pm
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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).
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7981
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?
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.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.
- 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?
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.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2019, 2:55 pmTools 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.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.
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.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023