Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 16:25:49 -0500
To: technology-AT-world.std.com
From: kirez-AT-cornell.edu (Kirez Korgan)
Subject: dialogue (re: kirez korgan)


Dialogue:

>I guess I'm confused as to why you are making the arguments you are making.
>No one here has really attacked "technology" to my knowledge.  

        You may be right here; I believe I"m loading my concept of
"technology" with what I regard as "pro-technology" - namely, free market
and cultural trends which reward innovation and encourage science.  I see
the "anti-technology" in the tone of Conley's book, and in most of the
field of sci-tech social science as I have experienced it.

> Rather, we question its
>application and effects in specific circumstances - a properly critical,
>philosophical stance.  This is, after all, a philosophy list.

        I'm only concerned with what would constitute a violation of an
individual's rights.  So long as people's rights are not being violated, I
think technological innovation can only be good, and is, whether beneficial
or non-beneficial, the right of the individual who wants to innovate (again
so long as he doesn't violate the rights of others; not always an easy
thing to discern, I know ).  Assessing risk is critical; particularly for
profit-hungry businesses.
        I'm sorry if I don't match your notion of philosophy of technology.
 What can I say?  A free market of ideas doesn't guarantee uniformity.  

>Your posts are the ones that strike me as highly ideological.  You have
>advanced a sort of ontological argument about work with which I am not
>totally in agreement, and you have not offered any support for it beyond,
>"that is the way things are."  Well, not everyone agrees, believe it or
>not.

        I don't expect people to agree; I expect a range of reactions from
"he's crazy", to hostility, to interest.  I think some people are thinking
that a lot of what I say makes sense: because they see that, yes, that is
the way things are.  I expect most to dismiss me, perhaps with anxiety and
fervor.
>
>And you keep giving us economics lectures - using such highly biased
>sources as Henry Hazlitt, who is a well-known ideologue, and not an
>economist whose ideas are near univerally accepted, as you would imply.
>
        I would never imply something so ridiculous - Hazlitt's ideas are
unpopular when they are not unkown  (but undefeated).
        Why must you say I'm "giving lectures"?  It seems you're lecturing
me as well.  I bet you'd love my other sources: FA Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises,
Frederic Bastiat.

>Nor is it demonstrably true that all workers displaced by the move towards
>automation are succesfully integrated elsewhere in the economy.  Many,
>especially older workers, become chronically un- or under-employed instead.

        Of course you can find exceptions.  But the economy progresses as a
whole, largely due to automation, and this is overall beneficial.  What's
the alternative?  And by what right do you propose to stop me from using
automation?  Or prevent me from consuming its products?

>Nor is it demonstrably true that paying people such as data entry operators
>a more decent wage would "drive their employeers underground."  (I suppose
>you mean "out of business.") 

        I think it's been demonstrated to be true that if 1) you
voluntarily pay highr wages (i.e. you can afford it) productivity and the
quality of the business is better, and 2) if the government/union forces
unnatural wage raises unemployment increases and the business shrinks,
hurting the workers.

>  One may have made the best and most
>rational choice under the circumstances.  I don't dispute that for a moment.
>I do not believe that it necessarily follows that one has gotten a "good"
>job.

        I agree.  Life is challenging, and industrial/city life can be very
harsh.  But it is overall more beneficial for everyone.

>goodness is not defined by that which
>is better than the worst.  But this is the proposition that seems to underlie
>your whole theory.

        What?  That's really a bizarre, unsupported statement.  I rather
consider myself an idealist, and would never establish the worst as a
standard and then define goodness in relation to it.  How silly.

>.  I do think you are talking to people who
>feel it is appropriate to always question what is put before us as the
>established truth. 

        That is precisely my position: to question established 'truth'.

>If you wish only to preach and to put down those who would dare to question
>your highly conventional viewpoints (and an appeal to your proletarian
>youth - shared with many if not most of history's "captains of industry"
>is really irrelevant here), I think a philosophy list is not a place where
>you can expect to find your needs met.

        This is bizarre.  I don't know what you're worried about: there's
only one person here arguing my viewpoint, and several arguing against me;
plus I expect that if others became vocal they would also disagree with me.
 And later you say I'm afraid of debate!  If that were the case, I could
just spew the crap I've been taught in science and tech studies and
economics and blend in with the rest of you.

        IF there is one thing which I challenge in what you've said, it's
that my position is conventional.   Later you mention focusing on the
actual social scientists who examine tech and science, and expect me to
conform to their jargon.  Now _this_ is appeal to conventionality.  I think
I am moderately familiar with the most widely reputed
historians/philosophers of science and technology - and I don't know one
who supports my position.  The nearest are Jacob Bronowski and Karl Popper,
and I disagree with them on some fundamental issues. (and it's not that I
want to be un-conventional or unique or rebellious; on the contrary I wish
that everybody understood the issues as I do.)

        On the contrary, I think you find yourself much more in agreement
with all the academics of science adn technology studies, and the vocal
reaction to my position from this list is typical: I'm not saying the right
things, not relying on the conventional arguments.  

        Please, demonstrate that the convention in science and technology
studies is to argue in favor of my position.  It is you who I cannot
distinguish from all the academics who appear to me to dominate the field.

        Now, you mean that many if not most of the captains of industry had
backgrounds similar to mine?  (yes I started cutting lumber at age 7 and
didn't always go to school.)  But I thought that successful people were
just lucky and favored by their environment?    Given better resources,
etc.  That's what I've always been told.