December 18, 2012 at 2:11 pm
GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
I don't see why we can't talk about our social and behavioral responses to technological advances without having to redefine perfectly functional words like the word "technology" itself. Is it really that hard to discuss relationships between areas of interest and how they combine or not without doing this word redefinition?I missed where we redefined that word.
From the editorial:
Ever since reading Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I've been interested in broadening out the definition of technology to include far more than computing, and to include things like the various emotions in our register as a species, games, rituals and the like.
December 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I don't think Bill Nicolich intended to redefine the word technology as much as point out that making technology is what humans do, and limiting the definition of the word to mean only whiz-bang hardware is to limit our views of what it means to be human. In that context (and speaking anthropologically) I think it's a very interesting slant on things to see our human events, rituals, holidays, etc. as just another category of technologies.
A pocket knife is a survival tool and surely counts as technology. But think of how many human societies have some sort of midwinter festival or ritual or whatever, many of them involving lights or candles or bonfires to symbolize the coming return of the sun. It's pretty clear that these rituals play some positive role in helping those cultures survive.
That fits the anthropological definition of a technology well enough for me.
Sigerson
"No pressure, no diamonds." - Thomas Carlyle
December 18, 2012 at 2:49 pm
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
I don't see why we can't talk about our social and behavioral responses to technological advances without having to redefine perfectly functional words like the word "technology" itself. Is it really that hard to discuss relationships between areas of interest and how they combine or not without doing this word redefinition?I missed where we redefined that word.
From the editorial:
Ever since reading Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I've been interested in broadening out the definition of technology to include far more than computing, and to include things like the various emotions in our register as a species, games, rituals and the like.
That's not actually a redefinition. That's a reversion from a redefinition. Technology = computers/electronics is a very recent redefinition of the word. He's just reverting to a definition that has existed and been in use for centuries, over a definition that's really only been in use for a few decades.
Just like if I call a certain packaged meat product "spam", you shouldn't consider that a redefinition, just because we've adopted (from that definition and a Monty Python skit), a newer definition meaning unwanted commercial e-mail.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 18, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Sigerson (12/18/2012)
I don't think Bill Nicolich intended to redefine the word technology as much as point out that making technology is what humans do, and limiting the definition of the word to mean only whiz-bang hardware is to limit our views of what it means to be human. In that context (and speaking anthropologically) I think it's a very interesting slant on things to see our human events, rituals, holidays, etc. as just another category of technologies.A pocket knife is a survival tool and surely counts as technology. But think of how many human societies have some sort of midwinter festival or ritual or whatever, many of them involving lights or candles or bonfires to symbolize the coming return of the sun. It's pretty clear that these rituals play some positive role in helping those cultures survive.
That fits the anthropological definition of a technology well enough for me.
I don't see the need to call technology a ritual, or a ritual technology. Clearly the interaction between the two could be interesting, heck I bet people resort to ritual like behavior in their interactions with technology. I don't have a problem with a pocket knife being called an example of technology. You guys can honestly go with this, we should all honor everyones personal dreams and aspirations, I just don't see the need, especially in fuzzing up otherwise well defined terminologies.
What happens if my computer dies? Do I ask somebody to fix my ritual? Or maybe I call the hergulflufleluf and get a replacement hoogamypratzlewazzer? I mean c'mon, this is a tech forum. Are we really going to redefine things on the fly now? "I'll write this query," if by saying "write this query" you mean "take the rest of the day off".
LOL ok now I'm just having a bit of fun, really, Bill is welcome to post what he wants.
December 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm
GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
I don't see why we can't talk about our social and behavioral responses to technological advances without having to redefine perfectly functional words like the word "technology" itself. Is it really that hard to discuss relationships between areas of interest and how they combine or not without doing this word redefinition?I missed where we redefined that word.
From the editorial:
Ever since reading Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I've been interested in broadening out the definition of technology to include far more than computing, and to include things like the various emotions in our register as a species, games, rituals and the like.
That's not actually a redefinition. That's a reversion from a redefinition. Technology = computers/electronics is a very recent redefinition of the word.
I don't believe the word technology has ever been limitted to computers and electronics, I can't recall anybody using it that way, the only way I could possibly think it works like that is because computers and electronics are used practically everywhere, and the non electronic tech is just not being waived around in pop culture like all the digital stuff is, ie., computers and digital tech is often the technology being discussed and it often just sort of defaults in. This does not stop me from discussing "optical technology" for instance, manufacturing technology, etc...
He's just reverting to a definition that has existed and been in use for centuries, over a definition that's really only been in use for a few decades.
I don't believe he's reverting to any definition that I can think of. I like the typical dictionary definition just fine. He did mention that he'd like to expand the definition.
"In the culture I'm in, living in the USA, technology mostly refers to computer technology. The last thing on people's minds when they think of technology are things like holidays and celebrations. But they are. They're social technologies designed to heighten social interaction, mark the passage of time, create anticipation and so forth. "
This is more of what I don't agree with. In no way would I view holidays and celebrations as being a technology. Now don't get me wrong, if this actually catches on, would I have any choice then in the matter? Of course not, just like in the 1980's I did not call unsolicited email "spam", nor would I start calling unsolicited email "spam" based on a single fellows definition unless it was an understood inside joke of some sort, or if a monty python script had it (and I had seen or heard it of course).
Theres not even a compelling need to call holidays and celebrations "social technologies" in my opinion. These sorts of new invented terms and usages do happen, and whether or not they become common in usage really depends on how society "votes" so to speak. Along those lines, consider my mild protest a bit of a vote on the issue. Certainly there are other votes here too. I will see for the next few years if his use pans out.
Just like if I call a certain packaged meat product "spam", you shouldn't consider that a redefinition, just because we've adopted (from that definition and a Monty Python skit), a newer definition meaning unwanted commercial e-mail.
I can offer some help here. "I am having a spam sandwich." This has context, you can read this with some certainty that I'm not putting unsolicitted email between two slices of bread.
Now, "I'm getting spammed like crazy!!!" What comes to mind?
December 18, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Patrick found a spot in the article where the phrasing is bad. Instead of redefine, I should have said re-assert.
Bill Nicolich: www.SQLFave.com.
Daily tweet of what's new and interesting: AppendNow
December 19, 2012 at 6:32 am
Here's a dictionary definition of "technology" (from http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+technology&qpvt=definition+technology&FORM=DTPDIA):
tech·nol·o·gy[ tek nóll?jee ]tech·nol·o·gies Plural
NOUN
1. application of tools and methods: the study, development, and application of devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes
"recent developments in seismographic technology"
2. method of applying technical knowledge: a method or methodology that applies technical knowledge or tools
"a new technology for accelerating incubation"
3. machines and systems: machines, equipment, and systems considered as a unit
"the latest laser technology"
4. cultural anthropology sum of practical knowledge: the sum of a society's or culture's practical knowledge, especially with reference to its material culture
[ Early 17th century. < Greek tekhnologia "systematic treatment" < tekhne "art, skill" ]
tech·no·log·ic ADJECTIVE
tech·no·log·i·cal ADJECTIVE
tech·no·log·i·cal·ly ADVERB
tech·nol·o·gist NOUN
Thesaurus
NOUN
Synonyms: skill, knowledge, expertise, know-how, equipment, machinery, tools
We're still not redefining. Just using definition 4 from this set.
Would you accept this statement:
The salesperson had developed techniques for approaching new prospects, and for keeping connected with prior customers, which included behavioral patterns on his part specifically selected and proven effective at improving his sales volume.
If so, then the use of the word "techniques" in there indicates a non-material technology, per dictionary definition. The techniques don't have to be effective to be part of a technology, they just have to be techniques. Is that a connection, clearly indicated by etimology of the two words, that makes sense to you? Can you accept that step of logic here?
How about this statement:
Governments and the people who run them often have techniques for manipulating the aggregate behavior of both their own populations and the populations of other groups, including propaganda, "bread and circuses", complex tax codes, educational manipulation, bank/finance/monetary manipulation, subsidies, bribe-taking/graft/privilege-fees, police control, military privilege, controls over import/export/production/distribution of goods/services, and a variety of other means.
Now we're using "techniques" (parts of a technology) specifically in reference to social manipulation/adaptation.
From that, it's easy to take one more step and view social rituals, religious or otherwise, as techniques a society uses in order to create a common social structure. Hence, a social technology.
From that perspective, does it make sense to call these things "technologies"? I think it does, but, that's my opinion and I'm certainly not going to try to force it on you, or on anyone else of course.
Doesn't have anything to do with rituals for fixing computers. (Though, Lord knows, I've seen plenty of Cargo Cult level rituals used for exactly that.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 19, 2012 at 7:17 am
GSquared (12/19/2012)
Here's a dictionary definition of "technology" (from http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+technology&qpvt=definition+technology&FORM=DTPDIA):tech·nol·o·gy[ tek nóll?jee ]tech·nol·o·gies Plural
NOUN
1. application of tools and methods: the study, development, and application of devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes
"recent developments in seismographic technology"
2. method of applying technical knowledge: a method or methodology that applies technical knowledge or tools
"a new technology for accelerating incubation"
3. machines and systems: machines, equipment, and systems considered as a unit
"the latest laser technology"
4. cultural anthropology sum of practical knowledge: the sum of a society's or culture's practical knowledge, especially with reference to its material culture
[ Early 17th century. < Greek tekhnologia "systematic treatment" < tekhne "art, skill" ]
tech·no·log·ic ADJECTIVE
tech·no·log·i·cal ADJECTIVE
tech·no·log·i·cal·ly ADVERB
tech·nol·o·gist NOUN
Thesaurus
NOUN
Synonyms: skill, knowledge, expertise, know-how, equipment, machinery, tools
While I'd rather go with websters's, and the source you quoted and prefer to base your discussion against is the lesser used 4th item, nontheless, there are far more suitable references in discussing social behavior that does not originate as a result of scientific knowledge. Even item 4 doesn't compel me to call social rituals "technology." I like having culture, ritual, and technology to refer to distinct concepts. Again, I don't see the need to expand technology's definition.
Thats pretty much it for my thoughts, its not that complicated.
December 19, 2012 at 7:44 am
Will this do?
From: http://websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/technology
Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment. In human society, it is a consequence of science and engineering, although several technological advances predate the two concepts. Technology is a term with origins in the Greek "technologia", "te???????a" — "techne", "t????" ("craft") and "logia", "????a" ("saying"). However, a strict definition is elusive; "technology" can refer to material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, hardware or utensils, but can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques. The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include "construction technology", "medical technology", or "state-of-the-art technology".
.....
(emphasis added)
Even Webster's agrees that the term is (a) difficult to give a precise definition to, and (b) can include techniques and is not limited to machines/tools.
There's a longer dissertation on it at the site. It's rather interesting and worth reading.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 19, 2012 at 9:12 am
GSquared (12/19/2012)
Will this do?From: http://websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/technology
Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment. In human society, it is a consequence of science and engineering, although several technological advances predate the two concepts. Technology is a term with origins in the Greek "technologia", "te???????a" — "techne", "t????" ("craft") and "logia", "????a" ("saying"). However, a strict definition is elusive; "technology" can refer to material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, hardware or utensils, but can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques. The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include "construction technology", "medical technology", or "state-of-the-art technology".
.....
(emphasis added)
Even Webster's agrees that the term is (a) difficult to give a precise definition to, and (b) can include techniques and is not limited to machines/tools.
There's a longer dissertation on it at the site. It's rather interesting and worth reading.
I agree with the above Websters definition, and disagree with:
In the culture I'm in, living in the USA, technology mostly refers to computer technology. The last thing on people's minds when they think of technology are things like holidays and celebrations. But they are. They're social technologies designed to heighten social interaction, mark the passage of time, create anticipation and so forth.
Now, why do I disagree with it? Firstly, because I can. We're all thoughtful human beings, and I can even theorize on why theres interest in calling this technology, ie., because since we techies spend so much of our life in technology and its the source of much of our personal identity, we might want to extend this technologically associated identity and thought process to the rest of our existance. Certainly I've noticed the temptation, but on the other hand, theres real reason why I resist, because I think its life enriching to accept that much of our existance draws from our shared humanity and shared history appart from the application of scientific discovery.
In other words I have friends in non technological places and I LIKE it!
This is ok by me if you want to live your life as a technological process, I'm not going to stand in the way of personal fufillment, if you want the foundation of your interpersonal relationships, holidays and rituals to originate from technological or scientific based analysis, thats fine.
I'm just saying I have no compulsion to follow along because I'm very much interested in social development and our rituals and culture and can appreciate that much originates outside of technological endeavors. I can appreciate for instance that while art makes use of technology, artistic endeavors are indeed something different and separate and our sense of beauty came first before efforts to dissect it in hopes of discovering its source. Even when science studies art, science studies art sort of "after the fact," in other words, you're going to be hard put to convince me that art is a scientific invention.
Now maybe why I'm encountering some protest with my thoughts on this is that this is indeed a tech forum and that my artistic and social and ritualistic side is simply not appreciated and this is an adjustment I can make here. I can even pretend to call my nontechnical life "technology" if you want, but do you really need me to lie to you? Isn't it enough to now know that I'd rather not expand or "reassert" the term "technology" over parts of my life that do just fine without being somehow "engineered"? Yes, its perfectly ok to call me wrong or somehow mistaken. I won't even be that changed by that, the world is full of disagreements and I can honor that. I'm just like I said, posting my "vote."
December 19, 2012 at 9:22 am
Patric, is this another one of these things like where you claimed to have more experience communicating that I do because your c. 300 posts on this site somehow count more than my c. 14,000 posts? (He claimed this exact thing in a message to me a little while back. It was ... odd.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 19, 2012 at 9:44 am
GSquared (12/19/2012)
Patric, is this another one of these things like where you claimed to have more experience communicating that I do because your c. 300 posts on this site somehow count more than my c. 14,000 posts? (He claimed this exact thing in a message to me a little while back. It was ... odd.)
But both you and I are experienced enough in posting here that we should both realise that once we start discussing private message threads, we are OFF TOPIC and doing the original editorial author a disservice. Can we agree here to disagree and cease now for the sake of the thread?
December 19, 2012 at 9:56 am
patrickmcginnis59 (12/19/2012)
GSquared (12/19/2012)
Patric, is this another one of these things like where you claimed to have more experience communicating that I do because your c. 300 posts on this site somehow count more than my c. 14,000 posts? (He claimed this exact thing in a message to me a little while back. It was ... odd.)But both you and I are experienced enough in posting here that we should both realise that once we start discussing private message threads, we are OFF TOPIC and doing the original editorial author a disservice. Can we agree here to disagree and cease now for the sake of the thread?
I think Bill's a big enough boy to judge for himself whether we're harming him in any way. He'll let us know if it's a problem.
And, yes, we can cease now. And thank you for answering my question. That will be all.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply