Public Philosophy of Technology: Motivations, Barriers, and Reforms.
Philosophers of technology are not playing the public role that our own theoretical perspectives motivate us to take. A great variety of theories and perspectives within philosophy of technology, including those of Marcuse, Feenberg, Borgmann, Ihde, Michelfelder, Bush, Winner, Latour, and Verbeek, e...
| Publicado en: | Techné: Research in Philosophy & Technology Vol. 17; no. 2; pp. 179 - 201 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Philosophy Documentation Center
Spring2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=95454497&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 95454497 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01617249 2Y0N jtl: Techné: Research in Philosophy & Technology issn: 01617249 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Spring2013 vid: 17 iid: 2 pid: 2411 pub: Philosophy Documentation Center artinfo: ui: 95454497 10.5840/techne201317212 ppf: 179 ppct: 22 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 732KB tig: atl: Public Philosophy of Technology: Motivations, Barriers, and Reforms. aug: au: Wittkower, D. E. Selinger, Evan Rush, Lucinda affil: Old Dominion University Rochester Institute of Technology su: Philosophy of technology Motivation (Psychology) Activists Scholarly peer review Social impact assessment sug: subj: Philosophy of technology Motivation (Psychology) Activists Scholarly peer review Social impact assessment keyword: activist scholarship activist-scholar impact assessment peer-review philosophy of technology Public philosophy scholarly intervention scholarship of engagement tenure and promotion ab: Philosophers of technology are not playing the public role that our own theoretical perspectives motivate us to take. A great variety of theories and perspectives within philosophy of technology, including those of Marcuse, Feenberg, Borgmann, Ihde, Michelfelder, Bush, Winner, Latour, and Verbeek, either support or directly call for various sorts of intervention--a call that we have failed to heed adequately. Barriers to such intervention are discussed, and three proposals for reform are advanced: (1) post-publication peer-reviewed reprinting of public philosophy, (2) increased emphasis on true open access publication, and (3) increased efforts to publicize and adapt traditional academic research. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Techné: Research in Philosophy & Technology is the property of Philosophy Documentation Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Techné: Research in Philosophy & Technology holder: Philosophy Documentation Center dt: @attributes: year: 2013 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|