Abstract
Professor Wisdom agrees with me1 that applied and science technology are distinct, but for different reasons. Since ‘reason’ may be either ‘criterion’ or ‘end’, let me make it clear that I use a simple factual criterion to distinguish the two, and to a definite philosophical end. Consider the following inference: Corroboration (or confirmation or verification, or factual support, or agreement with experience) is important in technology; technology is identical with science; therefore, corroboration is important in science. The inference is valid; its conclusion is false; and its first premise is true; hence, the identification of science and technology is mistaken. This suffices for me; for those who do not agree that the conclusion is false, and even insist that it must be true because the two premises are true, for them different arguments might be of use. If they see that the identification of science and technology is erroneous independently of the theory of corroboration, then they might be more agreeable to reform their ideas of corroboration too.
First published in Technology and Culture 8 (1967), 78–81.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1967 The University of Chicago Press
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Agassi, J. (1967). Planning for Success. In: Rapp, F. (eds) Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology. Theory and Decision Library, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-2184-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2182-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive