Abstract
As societies become increasingly technologised, the need for careful and critical assessment rises. However, attempts to assess or normatively evaluate technological development invariably meet with an antinomy: both structurally and historically, technologies display multistable possibilities regarding uses, effects, side effects and other outcomes. Philosophers, usually expected to play applied ethics roles, often come to the scene after these effects are known. But others who participate at the research and development stages find even more difficulties with prognosis. Recent work on ‘revenge’ effects (Tenner) and negative side effects (Kevles) are examined, as well as several cases of philosophers in ‘R&D’ roles. After sketching the antinomy,I outline a heuristic pragmatics of prognosis that addresses this quandary.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Dreyfus, H. (1993). What Computers Can't Do. Harper, New York.
Kevles, B. (1997). Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Kittler, F. (1989). The Mechanized Philosopher. In Rickels, L.A. (ed.)Looking After Nietzsche. SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Tenner, E. (1996). Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ihde, D. Technology and prognostic predicaments. AI & Soc 13, 44–51 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205256
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205256