From mechanical arts to the philosophy of technology

Abstract

In this paper, I reconstruct some of the key steps which characterise the way in which technology has been considered and studied since the times of ancient Greece. Within this reconstruction, I will highlight the evolution of the mechanical arts into the predominant technology which took centre stage during the First Industrial Revolution. The further step of the alliance between technology and science is also considered.

Keywords:

• technology
• mechanical arts
• Industrial Revolution

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Stan Metcalfe and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve the content of this work. Responsibility for any remaining errors is my own.

Notes

1. Conventionally, the Middle Ages span from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (ad 476) to the fall of Constantinople (1453) or to the arrival of Columbus in America (1492).

2. On the subordinate position of technology in antiquity, see also Klemm (1959).

3. The Hellenistic age conventionally starts in 323 bc with the death of Alexander the Great.

4. Circa ad 810–880.

5. Circa ad 1096–1141.

6. Despite the general change of attitude we have to remember that some accepted ‘scientific’ truths, such as the fact that the Earth was the centre of the universe, were to last for a while: Galileo's abjuration occurred in 1633 – one of the darkest pages of the Renaissance period.

7. For a concise history of the machine-tool industry in Britain, see De Liso (1997, 92–115).

8. See also Franssen, Lokhorst, and van de Poel (2009), Pitt (1999) and Durbin and Rapp (1983).

9. The word essence translates the German noun Wesen.

10. Incidentally, let us note that Heidegger's essay is very difficult to read, and the answer to his questioning the essence of technology is quite difficult to synthesise – assuming that one actually did understand it.

11. Smith refers to what we call labour productivity as the ‘productive power of labour’.

12. See also Mitcham (1994, 78–88).

13. In French: filière.

14. According to Landes (1966), commercial capitalism begins in 1100 and extends up to 1700.

15. The philosopher Rossi (1971) would not agree with this vision: he suggests that the alliance between technology and science was completed by 1700.

16. Thomas Young (1773–1829) was an English natural philosopher. The latter expression indicates the study of nature and the physical universe before the advent of modern science; to appreciate the importance of natural philosophy, let us remind that the full title of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica was actually Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

17. Babbage also anticipated the idea of national system of innovation (1830; see also De Liso 2006; on technological systems, see De Liso and Metcalfe 1996); on the line wealth and knowledge see also Langrish et al. (1972).

18. For an attempt at definitions of pure science, applied science and technology, see Feibleman (1961); also of interest is Bunge (1966).

19. For a clear and concise presentation of Wittgenstein's work, one can refer to the 1922 introduction to the English translation of his Tractatus logico-philosophicus by Bertrand Russell. Incidentally, let me point out the importance of Russell (1936).

20. The works by Polanyi (1962) and Caws (1979) are also worth remembering here.

21. The origin of these terms is due to J. Habermas, who uses the same words with respect to a completely different field.

22. On the relationship between technology, science and knowledge, see also the introductory chapter of De Liso and Leoncini (2011); on the technology policy dimension the work by Metcalfe (1995) is an excellent starting point.

23. The original name, which lasted for about one year, was École centrale des travaux publics.

24. A respected chemist of the time.

25. See, for instance, McNeil (1990, Chapter 21), Russo (2004), Heilbroner (1967), Smith (1994), Scranton (1995) and Edgerton (2007, Chapter 6).

26. In a not-too-distant past, there existed Ministries of War and War Offices.

27. Scranton writes that ‘from World War Two through the Cold War, the national security state took the lead in defining the critical problem sets for innovation’ (2008, 196).

28. Examples are the Concorde, infrared detectors, liquid crystal displays and carbon fibre (Bud and Gummett 1999).