Mirkin (2018)

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mirkin, Maxim. (2018) The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic. Scientonomy 2, 39-53. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29645.

Title The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic
Resource Type journal article
Author(s) Maxim Mirkin
Year 2018
URL https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29645
Journal Scientonomy
Volume 2
Pages 39-53

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that there is accepted propositional technological knowledge which appears to exhibit the same patterns of change as questions, theories, and methods in the natural, social, and formal sciences. I show that technological theories attempting to describe the construction and operation of artifacts as well as to prescribe their correct mode of operation are not merely used, but also often accepted by epistemic agents. Since technology often involves methods different from those found in science and produces normative propositions, many of which remain tacit, one may be tempted to think that changes in technological knowledge should be somehow exempt from the laws of scientific change. Indeed, it seems tacitly accepted in the scientonomic community that, while scientific communities clearly accept theories, technological communities merely use them. As a result, scientonomy currently deals with natural, social, and formal sciences, and the status of technological knowledge within the scientonomic ontology remains unclear. To help elucidate the topic, I propose that the historical cases of sorting algorithms, telescopes, crop rotation, and colorectal cancer surgeries confirm that technological theories and methods are often an integral part of an epistemic agent’s mosaic and seem to exhibit the same scientonomic patterns of change typical of accepted theories therein. Thus, I suggest that propositional technological knowledge can be part of a mosaic.

Theories

Here are all the theories formulated in Mirkin (2018):

TheoryTypeFormulationFormulated In
Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionPropositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.2018
Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionNot explicit.2018
Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionPropositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.2018
Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionNon-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.2018
Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)DescriptiveExplicit is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of explicit.2018
Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)DescriptiveImplicit is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of implicit.2018
Technological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018)DescriptivePropositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.2018

Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested in Mirkin (2018):

  • Sciento-2018-0011: Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin on 28 December 2018.1 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".c1 It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between explicable-implicit and inexplicable and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning implicit and explicit."c2
  • Sciento-2018-0012: Accept that propositional technological knowledge – i.e. technological questions, theories, and methods – can be part of a mosaic. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Maxim Mirkin on 28 December 2018.1 The modification was accepted on 11 February 2020. After a series of mostly off-line discussions, it has been agreed that the modification is to be accepted. It was agreed that "Mirkin's discussion of potential counterarguments [are] convincing".c1 The consensus is that "Mirkin presents arguments that technological knowledge, like scientific knowledge, can be accepted and not just used, and argues that there are no good prior reasons to suppose that technological knowledge would not be explicable using established scientonomic laws or patterns of change".c2 There seem to be "no prima facie reasons why changes in technological knowledge should not obey the same patterns of scientific change",c3 especially given that fact that "there is considerable overlap between science and technology, as when an instrument is used to acquire scientific data, and the trustworthiness of this data must be assessed".c4


References

  1. a b  Mirkin, Maxim. (2018) The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic. Scientonomy 2, 39-53. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29645.