Kranzberg’s First Law and the Challenges of Categorizing Technology and Science
Kranzberg’s First Law is a truism that states that technology is neither inherently good nor bad, but it is a neutral tool that can be used to bring about positive or negative outcomes depending on how it is employed. This law is an essential concept in understanding the relationship between technology and society. The theory of technology applied to science is a contentious issue in the fields of science and technology. This essay discusses the two main lines of argument against the theory that technology is applied science and the implications of Kranzberg’s First Law.
The Challenges of Categorizing Technology and Science
One of the arguments against the theory that technology is applied science is that scientific knowledge does not necessarily play a crucial role in the development of some technological sciences. There is a lack of a clear and concise definition of science and technology, which makes it challenging to categorize them accurately. If the definitions of science and technology are not well-interpreted, it is difficult to determine the extent to which technology plays a crucial role in scientific advancements (Connors, 1992).
The lack of a clear definition of science and technology leads to the downplaying of technological knowledge. Edwin Layton argues that engineers and inventors utilize knowledgeable traditions to shape scientific theories rather than technological endeavors. Engineers develop theoretical creations by drawing primarily from research rather than pure science or technology. The argument is that problem-solving in applied sciences depends more on concepts than technological knowledge (Sansbury, 2014).
Kranzberg’s First Law and Its Implications
Kranzberg’s First Law is a truism that underscores the inherent neutrality of technology. It does not display any impacts that could ensue a positive or negative outcome. According to Kranzberg, this law supplies humanity with the information and knowledge to allow them to be aware of technology’s capabilities throughout various circumstances. Public awareness and perception can illustrate that technological advances can revolutionize over time. Although there may be ramifications to new advances in technology, it is essential to emphasize, according to the first law, that technology is neutral (Sansbury, 2014).
Technology drives change, which is inevitable and provides the public with the ability to grow in society. As Kranzberg suggests that technology is neither good nor bad, the first law indicates that humankind and technology must coexist and find a means to balance in society. Ensuring the perfect balance is a challenge as society revolves solely around computers, iPods, television, livestreaming, or the internet. Several questions arise with this first law indicating that should an individual give up on all technology for specific periods of time? On the other hand, the discipline of the first law emphasizes that creating and setting boundaries between humankind and technology is the key to maintaining the neutral composition initially created by Kranzberg. This first law is possible; however, as society develops and re-develops itself, the dimensions of this first law or theory must be conceptualized and made specifically finite in the society that is being applied to, thus creating the essential boundaries required to be neutral (Sansbury, 2014).
The theory of technology applied to science surfaces various concerns with categorizing social and group theories. The lack of a clear and concise definition of science and technology and the downplaying of technological knowledge are the two main arguments against the theory that technology is applied science. Kranzberg’s First Law is a truism that underscores the inherent neutrality of technology. It suggests that humankind and technology must coexist and find a means to balance in society. The discipline of the first law emphasizes creating and setting boundaries between humankind and technology as the key to maintaining the neutral composition
References
Shew, A. (2020). Technological autonomy and the emergence of the human condition. Philosophy & Technology, 33(1), 49-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00366-2
Connors, Robert. (1992). Dreams and Play: Historical Method and Methodology.
Methods and Methodology in Composition Research. Eds. Gesa Kirsch and Patricia Sullivan. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.
Sansbury, M. (2014). Emergent Disciplines and Cultural Divisions: Melvin’s Kranzberg’s “Law of Technology” and New Humanities. Thesis, Georgia State University. http://schlarworks.gsu.edu/english_theses/17
Winner, L. (2018). Autonomous technologies and the problem of unintended consequences. European Journal of Philosophy, 26(2), 356-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12309
