Introduction to Science

and Technology and

Society
GEC 103: Science, Technology
and Society
 The basic concepts
• Science: Investigations of the physical world, including us and the stuff
we make
• Technology: Making stuff, including stuff used by society, and in the
production and dissemination of science
• Society: The sum total of our interactions as humans, including the
interactions that we engage in to figure things out and to make things
It should be clear that all of these are deeply interconnected. As this class
proceeds, we will begin to develop a better picture of the fundamental
nature of this interconnection.
The field of Science and Technology and Society
• (STS) is a relatively recent discipline, originating in the 60s and 70s,
following Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). STS was the
result of a “sociological turn” in science studies.
• STS makes the assumption that science and technology are essentially
intertwined and that they are each profoundly social and profoundly political.
The Two Cultures
 Science, Technology and Society (STS)
The intellectual roots of STS lie in the history, philosophy, and social study
of science and technology, an arena where often-controversial issues and
choices interface with values and influence public policy.
STS prepares students to understand both the technical and social
dimensions of science and technology, helps them become more
thoughtful and better-informed citizens of our high-tech society, and
develops their critical interdisciplinary thinking, research, and
communication skills.
Students flourish intellectually in an environment where critical
questioning is encouraged and opportunities for research are abundant.
 Being critical
In this class, we will try to develop a critical stance towards science and
technology.
• A critical stance is the deliberate creation of distance between us and the
object we study.
• In order to be critical we must step back and ask broad questions.
• Science claims to produce knowledge about the world. What is the nature
of this knowledge? Is it absolutely certain? Are there other kinds of
knowledge? And so on...
• Technology claims to improve our lives. Who is us? What does it mean to
have a better life? What’s to be gained and what’s to be lost. And so on...
 On a personal level, STS is…
Interdisciplinary education for life.
Relevant to every field of study.
A great major or double major or “the minor for all
majors”.
A way to improve your writing and communications
skills, problem-solving abilities, and ability to adapt to
changes in science and technology.
Attractive to potential employers.
Needed at all levels, in education, government, the private
sector, and internationally.
 STS is…

Interdisciplinary study of the interaction of

science and technology with society and culture.
The realization that discoveries and inventions
are shaped by historical forces and in turn
influence values, aspirations, events, and
institutions, thus shaping the course of history.
S and T in social and cultural context.
Both academic and activist.
 ACADEMIC STS
Scholarly Study of Science and Technology.
History, Philosophy, Sociology of S & T.
Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary.
Perennial and structural problems of history,
philosophy, and human nature.
Science dynamics
Technological dynamics
Informs activist STS issues.
 ACTIVIST STS
Gets involved in current issues.
Covers a broad social spectrum (not just academic).
Builds coalitions:
1. Awareness of a problem
2. Need to take responsibility
3. Draw on external expertise
4. Make decisions and take actions
(demonstrate, litigate, educate, legislate, etc.).
Strengths —relevance, empowerment, democratic.
Weaknesses — ad hoc, emotional, NIMBY.
Examples: nuclear power, toxic wastes, health care, climate change action.
 A “classical” view of science and technology
A typical, naive view of science might be as follows:
• Science is a formal activity that creates knowledge by direct interaction with nature.
• Science has some kind of special method that allows different scientists to produce the
same kind of knowledge whatever their social and political context might be.
• Scientists perform the same experiments in the same way, and agree upon and reject
the same hypotheses.
• Scientists come to consensus on the truths of the natural world.
• We have a sort of black box:
Nature -------Science ------Truth
 The demise of the “classical” view
The classical view began to fall apart in the process of 20th century
investigations of scientific activity.
• Philosophers were unable to formalize the “black box.” There appears to be no single
“scientific method.”
• When historians began to explore past scientific activities more closely, they found
there was no such thing as “pure science,” removed from social and political
interactions and assumptions.
• When sociologists began to open the black box of contemporary scientific activity,
they found that the inside was thoroughly social and political.
Then, why do most people still hold the naive view?
 “Scientism”
• Scientism goes back at least as far as the Scientific Revolution (c. 1550–1700) and
originates in the claim that there is a sharp divide between “facts” and “values.”
• According to this view, when we do science, we set aside values and study only facts.
• The authority of science rests on its claim to be “value free” and hence “objective.”
• Scientism promotes the idea that all of society’s problems can be solved by experts
who are specially trained to unearth the facts of the matter.
• Scientism, and the scientistic movement, make the claim that science is for the
benefit of all of humanity.
 “Technological progressivism”
• Technological progressivism has its roots in the European Enlightenment (c. 1700–
1800), when progress became a synonym for good and technology came to be seen as a
fundamental tool in progressive projects.
Good = Progress
Progress = Technology
• Technological progressivism assumes that technological change is inherently good and
sees it as self-propagating, moving by the internal constraints of technology itself.
• For example, we view new technologies as progressive and older ones as old fashioned
and use this as a reason for changing technologies.
• We advocate the adoption of new technologies with little reflection on their social
impact or the broader question of whether or not we want those impacts.
 “Technoscience”
• In the classical view of the relationship between science and technology, science leads
the way by creating knowledge from nature and technology follows by applying this
knowledge to the creation of new things.
• In this class, we will investigate the complex interaction between science and
technology and the social environments in which they are produced, and which they, in
turn, produce.
• We can call the sum total of scientific and technological activities technoscience.
Definition (Technoscience)
• Technoscience is the combined total of scientific and technological ideas and
activities in their social, political and economic realities
Modern society is thoroughly technoscientific
• Nobody has any doubt that modern society is technoscientific.
• Modern nation-states and the global economy, itself, could not
function if they were not based on technoscience.
• Every aspect of our lives are permeated by the products of
technoscience.
• It is impossible to understand modern society, without studying
the effects of technoscience.
 What makes something social?
• Society is the result of people, and institutions, interacting with one another. It is a
sort of epiphenomena of these individuals.
• Society in turn shapes the people and institutions that form it.
• Most people experience society as though it were an external force acting upon them.
• The “effects” of society operate through the vague mechanism of social norms.
Norms “tell” us what we should and should not do, what we should and should not
think. But they are not rational – or rather, their rationality is not universal.
• Norms produce the values that we use in interacting with others. They produce many
of our core ideas – such as ideas of the place of class, the role gender, the meaning of
race, the function of justice, the importance of objectivity, the criterion of truth, the
significance of evidence, etc.
 Technoscience is social
In the simplest sense, technoscience is the product of people, and people are social.
But it is possible to claim something much stronger than this:
• The social norms of technoscientists affects where they will look, what they will see
and what they will say about it. (Their worldview.)
• Technocientists’ norms are shaped by their discipline. (Basic scientific concepts mean
different things in different fields.)
• Professional norms affect the value that technoscientists place on judgments.
• We find disagreement about what counts as science across time and from place to
place.
• The development of technology is highly social, and depends on the manipulation of
social norms.
 What makes something political?
• Politics is about control. It is the result of the distribution and utilization of power in
our societies.
• Political activity functions by employing various structures, resources and discourses in order
to consolidate and wield power.
• Political structures are formal and informal “rules of play.” Formal rules are things like
laws and procedures, informal rules are things like social norms.
• There are many kinds of political resources: natural resources, money, military force,
knowledge, access, charm, etc.
• Politics uses discourses to control what is “sayable” and what is not, to control the way
in which something is said and the framework of what is discussed. Dominant
discourses lend a kind of cultural authority. There is, obviously, no clear boundary
between the social and the political.
 Technoscience is political
• There are formal and informal rules that dictate who can make decisions about
how to proceed with technoscientific work.
• Different political structures create different opportunities, at the national level,
the level of institutions, and the level of individuals.
• Individual knowledge workers (technoscientists), various institutions, and
different professional groups all use economic and cultural resources to advance
their aims.
• Discourses can be developed by appeal to both social and scientific norms.
These discourses can then be used as resources to advance technoscientific work.
• • This is often referred to as the production of social capital.
 Remember:

• modern societies are technoscientific

• technoscience is profoundly social and political
• many examples of the complex interactions between
science, technology and society are visibly seen around you
UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
 Science is. . .
 Natural knowledge
 Natural philosophy
 Natural history
 Systematic inquiry into nature
 A human cultural activity
 A total societal enterprise
 With vast social consequences
 Organized, well-founded knowledge of nature and human nature
 “A sophisticated intellectual version of Esperanto or the universal
language that the heroes of the scientific revolution imagined as an
instrument of global communication”
 “The cutting edge of ignorance”
CONTENT Body of organized knowledge about nature
From Latin scientia - knowledge
METHOD Of obtaining that knowledge, experiment,
observation, hypothesis, theory, law
ATTITUDE Organized and systematic skepticism
GOALS Explanation, understanding, prediction, control
LANGUAGE Mathematics and technical vocabulary
TOOLS Uses Instruments and technologies
COMMUNITY Discipline, education, credentials,
careers, patrons, societies, “turf ”
PROCESS Organized, but very diverse activity shaped by
social forces and historical change
 In general:
Science is an organized, hierarchical activity that investigates
nature and human nature by experiment and observation.
Its goals are explanation, understanding, prediction, and
control.
It tests its theories by logical, mathematical, and technological
means.
Science is shaped by social forces and historical change.
While seeking objectivity, science also shapes culture.
Stereotypes
 Scientific Knowledge
• Scientific knowledge is tentative.
• Scientific knowledge has basis in empirical evidence.
• There is a difference between data and evidence.
• Scientific laws and theories are separate kinds of
scientific knowledge.
 Scientific Knowledge
• Scientific knowledge is based upon observations and
inferences.
• Scientific knowledge is heavily dependent upon theories.
• Scientific knowledge is created from human imagination
and logical reasoning.
 Scientific Knowledge
• Scientific knowledge can be obtained by a variety of
scientific methods.
• Scientific observations are inherently subjective based on
interpretations.
• Science is a human endeavor influenced by society and
culture.
 What is Technology?
 A discourse or treatise on an art or arts;
 The scientific study of the practical or industrial arts.
 Techne (art, craft, skill), Logos (word).

Some other attempts at definitions:

• A system based on the application of knowledge, manifested in physical objects and
organizational forms, for the attainment of specific goals —Volti
• Cumulative sum of means used to satisfy human needs and desires and to solve
specific problems —Markert
• The sum total of systems of machines and techniques that underlie a civilization —
Nye
• Not merely a system of machines with certain functions, but an expression of a
social world —Nye
• The production of superfluities – today as in the Paleolithic age —Ortega y Gasset
• “The seeping false-hearted death” —DeLillo
 Technology

a. Artifacts or Hardware. Products fabricated by humans to meet specific

needs. Tools, machines, implements.
b. Knowledge and Methods. A system of tacit and explicit knowledge,
techniques, and materials utilized in using, making, or repairing a
certain kind of artifact.
c. A human cultural activity or profession. e.g. military or civil engineers,
crafters, machinists.
d. A total societal enterprise. e.g. “American technological know-how.”
R&D, invention, patronage, mass production and mass consumption.
 Think Piece #1

Can we define “Technology?”

Does Technology control us?
Is Technology predictable?