Abstract
In this chapter we identify three practice turns in the social and philosophical study of technology that we also relate to risk analysis. The first practice turn singled out technology as a topic meriting serious investigation as a social phenomenon, the second turn steered the field towards the consideration of philosophical problems directly relating to what technology is and what engineers do. The third practice turn explicitly aims at changing the field’s practice by close collaboration with the engineers. We argue that given the entanglement of evaluative and descriptive aspects of risk, it is important to develop approaches geared at this third turn, which is only now starting to take place. We propose that phronesis can play an important role in making context-sensitive assessments of evaluative aspects of risks, and that it can be assisted by emotions and art, as sources of moral reflection.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
While these are often referred to as ‘empirical turns’ in technology studies, we prefer the term ‘practice turn’, which brings us into line with other reflective disciplines such as sociology or philosophy of science.
- 2.
- 3.
Bayesian approaches can be seen as reasoning along these lines; however, they also face the problem that they cannot stop the regress by formal arguments alone (cf. Frisch 2015).
References
Asveld, L., & Roeser, S. (Eds.). (2009). The ethics of technological risk. London: Routledge/Earthscan.
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.
Biddle, J., & Winsberg, E. (2010). Value judgements and the estimation of uncertainty in climate modeling. In P. D. Magnus & J. Busch (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of science (pp. 172–197). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brook, B. W., Edney, K., Hillerbrand, R., Karlsson, R., & Symons, J. (forthcoming). Energy research within the UNFCCC: A proposal to guard against ongoing climate-deadlock. Climate Policy. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1037820.
Chang, R. (1997). Introduction. In R. Chang (Ed.), Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason (pp. 1–34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Churchman, C. W. (1948). Theory of experimental inference. New York: Macmillan.
Churchman, C. W. (1956). Science and decision making. Philosophy of Science, 22, 247–249.
Decker, M. (2013). Technikfolgen. In A. Grunwald (Ed.), Handbuch Technikethik (pp. 33–38). Stuttgart: Metzler.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 42–57.
Frisch, M. (2015). Predictivism and old evidence: A critical look at climate model tuning. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(2), 171–190.
Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1981). Acceptable risk (p. 185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gessert, G., (2003). Notes on the art of plant breeding. In L’Art Biotech catalogue, exhibition catalog, Nantes: Le Lieu Unique, 47
Giddens, A. (1990). Consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. London: Viking.
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Intuitive judgment: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes. New York: Penguin.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage Books.
Hall, C. A. (2005). The trouble with passion: political theory beyond the reign of reason. New York: Routledge.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1967). DO machines make history? Technology & Culture, 8, 335–345.
Hillerbrand, R. (2010). Unintended consequences and risky technologies. A virtue ethical approach to the moral problems caused by genetic engineering. In D. Pavlich (Ed.), Environmental justice and global citizenship (pp. 167–183). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hillerbrand, R. (2011). Von Risikoabschätzungen zum „guten Leben“, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Themenheft Ende des Atomzeitalters? 61. Jahrgang, 46–47(14), 42–48.
Hillerband, R. (2015). The role of nuclear energy in the future energy landscape: Energy scenarios, nuclear energy and sustainability. In B. Taebi & S. Roeser (Eds.), The ethics of nuclear energy: Risk, justice, and democracy in the post-Fukushima era (pp. 231–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Höffe, O. (1993). Moral als Preis der Moderne: Ein Versuch über Wissenschaft, Technik und Umwelt. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.
Janssen, P. H. M., Petersen, A. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Risbey, J. S., & Ravetz, J. R. (2005). A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. Water Science and Technology, 52(6), 125–131.
Jasanoff, S. (1993). Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 13(2), 123–129.
Jeffrey, R. (1954). Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 22, 237–246.
Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt a.M: Insel Verlag.
Kahan, D. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk (pp. 725–760). London: Springer.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11–27.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177–187.
Kirchin, S. (Ed.). (2013). Thick concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kingston, R. (2011). Public passion: rethinking the grounds for political justice. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press.
Kompridis, N. (Ed.). (2014). The aesthetic turn in political thought. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (Eds.). (2000). The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology. Amsterdam: JAI.
Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 1–4.
Künneke, R., Mehos, D. C., Hillerbrand, R., & Hemmes, K. (2015). Understanding values embedded in offshore wind energy systems: Toward a purposeful institutional and technological design. Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 118–12.
Lacewing, M. (2005). Emotional self-awareness and ethical deliberation. Ratio, 18, 65–81.
Little, M. (2000). Moral generalities revisited. In B. Hooker & M. Little (Eds.), Moral particularism (pp. 276–304). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welche, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.
Luntley, M. (2003). Ethics in the face of uncertainty: Judgement not rules. Business Ethics A European Review, 12(4), 325–333.
Maga, D. (2015). A methodology to assess the contribution of biorefineries to sustainable bio-based economy. Oberhausen: Karl Maria Laufen.
McDowell, J. (1981). Non-cognitivism and rule-following. In S. Holtzman & C. Leich (Eds.), Wittgenstein: To follow a rule (pp. 141–162). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Moore, G. E. (1988 [1903]). Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Möller, N. (2012). The concepts of risk and safety. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk (pp. 55–85). Dordrecht: Springer.
Nihlén Fahlquist, J. (2015). Responsibility as a virtue and the problem of many hands. In I. van de Poel, L. Royakkers, & S. D. Zwart (Eds.), Moral responsibility and the problem of many hands (pp. 187–208). London: Routledge.
Nihlén Fahlquist, J., & Roeser, S. (2015). Nuclear energy, responsible risk communication and moral emotions: A three level framework. Journal of Risk Research, 18(3), 333–346.
Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2013). Political emotions: why love matters for justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
O’Malley, P. (1999). Governmentality and the risk society. Economy and Society, 28(1), 138–148.
Peinke, J., Böttcher, F., & Barth, S. (2004). Anomalous statistics in turbulence, financial markets and other complex systems. Annals of Physics, 13(7–8), 450–460.
Raynor, S., & Cantor, R. (1987). How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis, 7(1), 3–9.
Reichle, I. (2009). Art in the age of technoscience: Genetic engineering, robotics, and artificial life in contemporary art. Vienna: Springer.
Reitinger, C., Dumke, M., Barosevcic, M., & Hillerbrand, R. (2011). A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(4), 380–388.
Reitinger, C., Kopriwa, N., Penner, H., Piana, L., Dumke, M., Fayyaz, S., Hillerbrand, R., & Pfennig, A. (2012). Integration sozialer Aspekte bei der Prozessbewertung. In M. Decker, A. Grunwald, & M. Knapp (Eds.), Der Systemblick auf Innovation. Technikfolgenabschätzung in der Technikgestaltung, Tagungsband NTA 4 (pp. 419–423). Berlin: Sigma.
Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science, 44, 689–700.
Roeser, S. (2007). Ethical intuitions about risks. Safety Science Monitor, 11, 1–30.
Roeser, S. (2009). The relation between cognition and affect in moral judgments about risk. In L. Asveld & S. Roeser (Eds.), The ethics of technological risk (pp. 182–201). London: Routledge/Earthscan.
Roeser, S. (Ed.). (2010a). Emotions and risky technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
Roeser, S. (2010b). Intuitions, emotions and gut feelings in decisions about risks: Towards a different interpretation of “neuroethics”. The Journal of Risk Research, 13, 175–190.
Roeser, S. (2010c). Emotional reflection about risks. In S. Roeser (Ed.), Emotions and risky technologies (pp. 231–244). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roeser, S. (2011). Moral emotions and intuitions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roeser, S. (2012). Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: A role for emotions. Risk Analysis, 32, 1033–1040.
Roeser, S., Fahlquist, J. N., Hillerbrand, R. (2015). Risk. In H. ten Have (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics (pp. 1–10). Springer, online first.
Roeser, S., & Pesch, U. (2016). An emotional deliberation approach to risk. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41, 274–297.
Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., & Peterson, M. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. London: Springer.
Ross, A., & Athanasoulis, N. (2012). Risk and virtue ethics. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk (pp. 833–856). London: Springer.
Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1–6.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991). Risk and rationality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689–701.
Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
Slovic, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2015). Numbers and nerves: Information, emotion, and meaning in a world of data. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.
Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (Eds.). (2014). Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science. London: Routledge.
Staiger, J., Cvetkovich, A., & Reynolds, A. (2010). Political emotions. London: Routledge.
Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232–1238.
Steger, F., & Hillerbrand, R. (2013). Praxisfelder angewandter Ethik. Ethische Orientierung in Medizin, Politik, Technik und Wirtschaft. Münster: Mentis.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2010). Moral heuristics and risk. In S. Roeser (Ed.), Emotions and risky technologies (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht: Springer.
Taebi, B., & Kloosterman, J. L. (2008). To recycle or not to recycle? An intergenerational approach to nuclear fuel cycles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 177–200.
Taebi, B., Roeser, S., & Van de Poel, I. (2012). The ethics of nuclear power: social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy, 51, 202–206.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology and engineering. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design sources, theory, values and application domains. Dordrecht: Springer.
Van der Burg, S., & Van Gorp, A. (2005). Understanding moral responsibility in the design of trailers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 235–256.
Williams, B. (2006). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Routledge.
Zwijnenberg, R. (2009). Preface. In I. Reichle (Ed.), Art in the age of technoscience: Genetic engineering, robotics, and artificial life in contemporary art (pp. xii–xxix). Vienna: Springer.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Peter Kroes and Maarten Franssen for their extremely helpful comments on earlier drafts on this chapter, and Veronica Alfano for proofreading and editing our text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hillerbrand, R., Roeser, S. (2016). Towards a Third ‘Practice Turn’: An Inclusive and Empirically Informed Perspective on Risk. In: Franssen, M., Vermaas, P., Kroes, P., Meijers, A. (eds) Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33716-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33717-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)