What Is Technology?

Science and technology are constant themes in Crichton's work. In previous posts, I attempted to clarify what science is and some of the social problems that surround it. In this thread, I will attempt to clarify what technology is and some of the social and ethical problems surrounding it.

Technology is not what most people think that it is. So before attempting to define it, I want to dispel two common misconceptions regarding the nature of technology. First, many people think of technology as applied science. Science figures things out and technology applies that knowledge. This seriously misses the contributions of technology itself to those applications; and saying that technology is applied science is like saying that the culinary arts are just applied agriculture. The analogy is apt because, in both cases, necessary raw materials are produced by the former, but the later still has a lot of work to do.

Second, people often think of technology as the gadgets that populate and sometimes even define the modern world. Computers, DVD players, cell phones, the Internet, and so on are all examples of technology.

A few posts back, I stated "Science is, first and foremost, a process". While we tend to view the products of that process as science, science is the process and the products are the products. Similarly, technology is a process and we also tend to view the products of that process as technology. But, again, technology is the process and the products are the products.

So, what is technology? If we go back to the roots of the word we can get some insight into its nature. Technology comes from two ancient Greek words: techné and logos. Techné is a reliable process by which a desired result is produced. We can think of the word as meaning craft although our modern understanding of a craft is a bit less disciplined than techné. Logos is a rigorous understanding of an area of inquiry. So, biology (bios logos), for example, is a rigorous understanding of life. Technology is a rigorous understanding of how to produce desired results. Our modern word, engineering captures much of this. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of the word engineering is, perhaps, a little too disciplined for the concept of technology. Persuasive rhetoric is certain a body of knowledge about how to produce a desired result. But, few people would refer to it as persuasion engineering.

Nonetheless, technology is a body of knowledge about how to produce desired results. The focus of science is the things that make up the natural world. The focus of technology are the things that are not yet part of the natural (or social) world but could be.

A Case of Need

A Case of Need occupies an interesting transitional place in the works of Micheal Crichton, and, I have to confess, that, at this point, I have far more questions than answers. The premise of the book is that a young woman has died of a botched abortion and a doctor who performs illegal abortions is charged with the murder. The protagonist, another doctor and a friend of the one charged does not believe the charge is legitimate and sets out to find out what happened.

Even though the book is published under the name of Jeffery Hudson, it is not a major departure from the preceding books published under the pseudonym of John Lange. I am not sure, at this point, why Crichton decided to switch names. I will have to look into that. I heard him say, in an interview, that Jeffery Hudson was a dwarf, and he found that amusing since in real life Crichton was very tall. But that does not seem to be an adequate explanation. The book is a mystery, written in a noir style not unlike Grave Descend, and the protagonist is a doctor, as was the case in Zero Cool. Had this been the last John Lange book, it would have fit right in.

On the other hand, we see some indications of where Crichton will be going in the future. You can see the roots of ER in his unflinching, perhaps even cynical, look at the realities of life in the medical profession. He enhances the credibility of the story by providing abundant medical information. And he takes on a social cause. The book was published in 1968. Roe v. Wade was not until 1973. So illegal abortions were still, very much, a social issue.

I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. As I approached the end, I slowed down not wanting it to end. At the very it weakened a bit almost as though it had to be finished to meet a deadline of some kind. But, overall, it was a delightful book and I will revisit it from time to time in future posts.

Social Issues in Science

Following up on the previous posts on science, we can identify at least three major issues with respect to science that science, as an epistemology, cannot answer for us. These are questions about science that cannot be answered by science and consequently can be thought of as limitations of science.

First of all, when can we treat knowledge that was acquired through scientific inquiry as truth? There are abundant examples of scientists changing their mind about things and this is a good thing. It would be terrible if scientists stuck steadfastly to old ideas despite new evidence or new thinking. However, at what point along the discovery process do we accept scientific truth as true enough for now? When do we teach it as truth and when do we use it in making decisions?

Second, if we think a bit of knowledge is true or true enough, what does it mean and what are the implications? For example, penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic. That relationship between penicillin and microbes was discovered and validated scientifically. But what does that mean? Does it mean you can give people penicillin to cure bacterial illnesses? It would seem so. But it isn't quite that clear. Some people have allergies to penicillin. Using penicillin creates bacteria that are resistant to it. Saving lives means additional population and a greater strain on resources. What do we do about those things? Science is not quite as well equipped to give us answers there.

Third, what should we do about the knowledge we acquire scientifically. Let's say that a particular ethnic group is discovered to excel at a particular kind of work or prone to a particular kind of anti-social behavior. Should than information be used in public policy decisions? Science is prudently silent on that issue.

The problem here is that we take what science is good at - discovering reliable knowledge, over time, about the natural world - and extrapolate that to things science is not good at - implications, meaning, and possibilities.

This is a theme that Crichton returns to time and time again. We have almost a blind faith in science to answer all of our questions (beyond knowledge about the natural world) and this blind faith is seriously misplaced.

Should Pirate Latitudes Have Been Published?

Should Pirate Latitudes have been published? Jane Julius Honchell raised this question last week in an interesting article on the perils of posthumous publishing. She makes some good points.
The heirs don't really need the money and we don't know if the author (Crichton) would have approved of releasing the book in its current form.

However, I am glad that it was published. There are three reason why this is the case. First, I enjoyed the book; perhaps not as much as Jurassic Park. But I enjoyed it. Second, I have been making the case that Crichton has attempted to write in a variety of styles, perhaps mimicking the styles of other authors. Pirate Latitudes provides us with yet another example of this.

But one of the things I found most interesting about Pirate Latitudes was the fact that it was clearly not ready for publication. There are endless amateurish mistakes that a master like Crichton would not have made in a final product. These mistakes give us insight into the writing process and help us understand why a master is a master.

The real question here is who really owns the work of an artist? Not from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Next time I will argue that once the writer is finished with a work, it is owned by the readers.