Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:19:18.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Technology Aids and Impedes the Growth of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Joseph Agassi
Joseph Agassi*
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University and York University, Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Allow me to begin by thanking Professor Nickles for his organizing the session on “Technology and Scientific change” in order, as he wrote me in his kind letter of invitation to participate in this session, to explore ways in which technological developments have stimulated or obstructed scientific change. I take it there is no established list of ways in which technological progress stimulates scientific progress, yet some ways are all too obvious. The simplest, perhaps, are the cases of the technological progress which facilitate the life of the scientist, the technological progress which makes more free time available, some of which is used for scientific education and research, the innumerable technological advances which raise the standard of living in myriads of ways, and which help science grow in all sorts of manners. I suppose these are the indirect ways.

Type
Part XIII. Technology and Scientific Change
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 584 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Robert S. Cohen went over the penultimate version of this paper and won my gratitude yet again.

References

Bacon, Francis. (1620). Novum Organum. Instauratio Magna. Part 2. London: J. Billium. (As reprinted as Novum Organum. (ed.) Devey, J.. New York: P.F. Collier and Son, 1902.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. (1627). New Atlantis. Published with Sylya Sylvarum. London: W. Rawley. (As reprinted as The Advancement of Learning and Hew Atlantis. (ed.) Johnston, Arthur. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Butler, Samuel. (1872). Erewhon. London: Trubner. (As reprinted New York: Basic Books, 1954.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. (1741-2a). “Of Refinement in the Arts.” In Essays . Moral. Political and Literary. (Reprinted London: Oxford University Press, 1963. Pages 275-288.Google Scholar
Hume, David. (1741-2b). “Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences.” In Essays. Moral. Political and Literary. (Reprinted London: Oxford University Press, 1963. Pages 112-138.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. (1968). “The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science.” Science 159: 55-63. (As reprinted in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Invesltgations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Pages 439-459.Google ScholarPubMed
Popper, Karl. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar