With all this Pseudoscience, Why so Little Pseudotechnology?
- PDF / 260,159 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 53 Downloads / 165 Views
(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
With all this Pseudoscience, Why so Little Pseudotechnology? Sven Ove Hansson1 Received: 20 May 2020 / Accepted: 4 June 2020 The Author(s) 2020
Abstract After a review of previous uses of the term ‘‘pseudotechnology’’, a definition is proposed: ‘‘A pseudotechnology is an alleged technology that is irreparably dysfunctional for its intended purpose since it is based on construction principles that cannot be made to work’’. The relationship between pseudotechnology and pseudoscience is discussed, and so is the relationship between pseudotechnology and the much weaker concept of technological malfunction. An explanation is offered of why pseudotechnology is much more seldom referred to than pseudoscience: dysfunctional technology usually reveals itself when put to use, whereas dysfunctional science tends to be more difficult to disclose. Keywords Pseudotechnology Technology Malfunction Pseudoscience Science fiction Magic
1 Introduction The influence of pseudoscience in today’s world is obvious and in important respects ominous. Creationism blocks basic understanding of biology, antivaccinationism and quackery threaten public health, and climate science denialism endangers the future of humankind. With so much pseudoscience, one might expect a similar abundance of pseudotechnology. Gustavo Romero (2018, p. 67) rightly remarked that ‘‘as most human products, science and technology can be faked’’, and that one can therefore expect to find ‘‘activities and artifacts presented or offered as scientific or technological which actually are not’’. But in practice, there is a striking difference in the frequencies with which the concepts of pseudoscience and pseudotechnology are referred to. This was pointed out more than twenty years ago by James McOmber (1999, p. 140), who noted that ‘‘[s]cientists may accuse & Sven Ove Hansson [email protected] 1
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
123
Axiomathes
creationists, parapsychologists, and others of pseudoscience’’, whereas ‘‘few accusations of ‘pseudotechnology’ ever appear.’’ This was confirmed by a Google search in April 2020, which yielded almost 700 times more occurrences of the word ‘‘pseudoscience’’ than the word ‘‘pseudotechnology’’ (7,910,000 respectively 11,600). Is this because pseudotechnology does not in fact exist? Perhaps there is nothing, or very little, that stands in the same relation to technology as pseudoscience to science? This is what the late historian and philosopher of technology Ann Johnson indicated in one of her papers: ‘‘Scholars in the technology as knowledge tradition have carefully avoided limiting definitions of technological knowledge in an explicit effort to avoid some of the restrictions that have arisen through the epistemology of science. We may speak of pseudo-science, but never of pseudo-technology. ’’ (Johnson 2005, p. 555) This article attempts to answer two questions: First, is pseudotechnology an oxymoron, or is it a phenomenon that can and does ex
Data Loading...
