//****************************************************************************//
//************ Sociology of Technology - September 25th, 2019 ***************//
//**************************************************************************//

- "Alright, there're TWO things we need to do today!"
    - First, we need to go back over chapter 2 and cover the ethics stuff as the textbook says it (we'll do more of it next week)
    - Then, we're going to start our mini-unit on sociology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Alright, in chapter 2 the book struggles with how to translate philosophy ideas "for engineers," and settles calling it "common morality"
    - For utilitarianism, the book talks about cost-benefit analysis, maximizing consequences, and so forth
        - The book also tries to make the point that you can have rules AND utilitarianism at the same time (if the purpose behind those rules is based on maximizing pleasure/minimizing pain)
    - It then gives a dumbed-down version of deontology called "respect for persons," talking about it's versions of the categorical imperative
        - It's versions of those are the "Golden Rule" as well as the "self-defeating test" (would this work if everyone did it?), and talking about rights
    - It talks about virtue ethics, too, and actually does a good job about where virtual ethics can get practical
        - In particular, there're 4 types of "judgement" listed on page 28 that I think you should look at and know

- Now, we'll cover chapter 2 in more detail next week (I do think it makes some good practical points), but we're now going to take a detour into...
    - ...THE SOCIOLOGY ZONE!

- One important term for us to know is SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
    - When we talk about things that've been "socially constructed," we mean that something has been decided by society, rather than natural
        - Many people would argue that gender roles are an example of this, that "masculinity" and "feminity" aren't natural laws or anything, but're just concepts that've been created by society and cultures
            - People who study this kind of stuff highlight that things we hold as "facts" are often held for social reasons, rather than because they're objectively "true"
        - People've applied this to animals, too, and things like different cultures in wolf packs, behavioral differences between different monkeys, etc.
    - Back in the 1970s and 1980s, people started talking about the social construction implicit in science and technology
        - "...this is a kind of controversial field that some people call bull**** on, so if you're listening to this and thinking 'eh, I'm not so sure,' you're not alone"
        - Here, people started to focus on studying the practices of scientists and researchers, and how they conduct meetings, what their daily routines are like, who they works with, and so on
            - That's all well and good, but here's the controversial part: sociologists would say that there's no part here where we literally "find" objectives facts, just a lot of people going through their day and arguing and figuring out which journal to publish in - it's all social factors!
                - So, social constructionists would say that "scientific facts" are just social constructions, and that's it!
                - (This is where most people have some beef with this)

- Now, onto your reading! But first, let's cover some background stuff
    - We had a reading from Bijker and Pinch, who come from a sociological school called SSK: the "Sociology and Scientific Knowledge" group
        - These folks are concerned about "interests" and squabbles between different labs, and how social factors deal with which theories become accepted
            - The sociologists would say "for us, it's not about which lab is actually right or wrong - it's about how the field as a whole ends up converging on a single theory and accepting it as a fact"
                - They would ask people why the believe something is true, an they'd say "well, I didn't do the experiments, but I read the paper in a reputable journal and saw it got an NHS grant, which is pretty prestigious..." - those are all social reasons for believing it's true!
    - In the 1990s, the "science wars" started, where a bunch of philosophers and scientists got fed up with the sociologists "undermining" the validity of science and argued against them
        - This started out as a nice, academic debate, and then it turned nasty
        - Who won? NO ONE - it just kind of petered out, and now the field just...still exists, and've continued on to other topics (like if "expertise" is a social construction, and to what degree)

- Now, that's the social construction for science - but our reading was about the social construction of TECHNOLOGY
    - In one way, this is less controversial than the science stuff, since we'd all agree that technology is something that's "created" 
    - The big theory that the reading talked about was SCOT
        - "This field loves it's acronyms, people"
        - A big idea in this theory is INTERPRETIVE FLEXIBILITY, which is the idea that the way technology is developed isn't just a linear model of "good to better"
            - Instead, when the technology is first introduced, it's place in society hasn't settled, and it could go in a BUNCH of different directions
        - The classic example of this is the development of a bicycle
            - Here, many people think that we started off with big-wheeled bikes, then someone made a small-wheeled one and everyone realized that was better - but that's NOT what happened!
            - Instead, there were BOTH kinds of bikes at the same time, and they were used for different purposes
                - "Athletes back then had hilarious handlebar mustaches, and they liked the big-wheeled bikes to show off their skills"
                - Then, the more "normal-wheeled" bikes were considered "safety" bicycles for transportation
            - Sociologically, people would argue here that it wasn't that the "better" bike one out - instead, for social reasons, the safety bike ended up becoming more popular and winning out

- some other examples of sociology in technology
    - Why do women take oral pills for contraception, and then men tend to use condoms?
        - At the time, it's because feminists were demanding it so they could have sexual control of their bodies, and thus a pill was developed for them - but a male equivalent was never developed because there was no demand! The reasons had NOTHING to do with biology
    - Also, synthesizers!
        - The Moog synthesizer ended up "winning out" not because it was better than alternatives, but because it had a keyboard that made it easier to use
            - Sidenote, it's prounced "Moe-gh" ("I was corrected in this very class 2 years ago by a student, who literally said Bob Moog was his uncle")

- Alright - do the Vallor reading on Canvas for Friday, and see you next week!