The Nature of Technology Kap 6 Flashcards
The origins of technologies (10 cards)
What, for Arthur, distinguishes a radically novel technology from an incremental improvement?
A technology counts as radically novel only when it is built on a new or different base principle—a fundamentally different way of achieving the purpose (e.g., laser printing versus line‑printing, turbojets versus piston‑propellers). Merely refining components without changing the governing principle—such as adding a condenser to Newcomen’s steam engine—remains standard engineering, not invention.
Arthur says invention follows two broad origin patterns. What are they?
(1) Need‑driven: the process starts with a perceived purpose or problem and searches for a principle that can fulfil it (e.g., Whittle and von Ohain seeking an alternative to piston‑propellers).
(2) Phenomenon‑driven: it begins with noticing or theorising an effect and then imagining a use for it (e.g., Fleming observing Penicillium’s bacteria‑killing effect and later pairing it with the aim of infection control). In both cases the principle must still be embodied in working parts.
Summarise Arthur’s “chain” metaphor for invention
Invention links a need at one end to a base effect at the other by forming a chain of solutions. Each link (solution) often spawns sub‑links (sub‑solutions), so the chain is
recursive: problems beget sub‑problems until every link can be physically realised. Completion occurs only when the entire chain—principle plus all supporting parts—holds together and works.
What does “finding a base principle” involve, and how does problem framing matter?
Inventors first re‑express the vague need as technical requirements—a well‑specified problem. They then scan concepts and effects, testing candidate principles against those requirements. Obstacles exposed by a candidate redefine sub‑problems, forcing back‑and‑forth exploration until a principle proves feasible.
According to Arthur, what lies “at the core” of invention?
Mental association and appropriation. Inventors reach into a large “quiver” of known functionalities and principles, mentally combine or transfer them, and suddenly see a configuration that links problem to effect. The insight feels obvious afterward because the subconscious has already stitched familiar pieces together.
Explain the “pyramid of causality” and its implication for new technologies.
Any novel device rests on a layered pyramid of earlier technologies, scientific knowledge, techniques, and social interactions that cumulatively make it possible. This background means inventions tend to appear when enough supporting pieces and needs align—their timing is not predetermined, but it is strongly conditioned by prior build‑up.
Why does Arthur argue that assigning a single “first inventor” is usually misguided?
Because multiple groups often conceive the same principle once the pyramid is ready, and successive prototypes borrow from one another. Credit belongs less to a lone originator and more to those who clearly articulate, champion, and bring a principle into satisfactory use.
How does Arthur extend his invention logic to science and mathematics?
He claims theories and proofs are also purposed systems. Scientists link observational puzzles to explanatory principles, while mathematicians link a theorem to structural ideas that can construct its proof. Thus, the same recursive linking of problems to conceptual building blocks underpins origination across technology, science, and math.
What three routes can create new “building blocks” in the technological collective?
(1) Solutions to standard engineering problems (incremental but reusable components).
(2) Non‑deliberate inventions that emerge unintentionally (e.g., the monetary system).
(3) Deliberate radical inventions that unite a new principle with a need. All three recombine existing elements to work.
Give a chapter example where combining existing functionalities produced a new principle.
Ernest Lawrence’s cyclotron: he merged Wideröe’s idea of low‑voltage, repeated jolts with a magnetic field that forced particles into circular paths, letting two curved “D” electrodes be reused each lap. The result solved the high‑voltage and space problems of earlier accelerators and formed a novel principle from pre‑existing pieces.
