Epis-technology
by Bill Bauerle

Neil Postman in his book Technopoly address's the effect technology has on our culture, and ultimately its influence on our world view. The point of his work is to show how a culture will go from, what he terms, a "tool using culture" to being a "tool of the tool." While this work is a very "broad stroke" on the subject of Epistemology, Postman touches on the effect technology has had on it. Therefore, I intend to limit myself in this paper to discussion on this topic only. I will also be drawing on another Postman's writings as well, Amusing Ourselves to Death. In this book he looks specifically at the effect television has had on this area.

Let's start with Postman's definition of epistemology for the purpose of his writings. As he says, "In particular, I want show that definitions of truth are derived, at least in part, from the character of the media of communication through which information is conveyed." This corresponds with a portion of the definition of epistemology given us in the New Dictionary of Theology, "The study of nature and basis of experience." He also noted, "tools [technology] play a central role in the thought-world of the culture. Everything must give way, in some degree, to their development. The social and symbolic worlds become increasingly subject to the requirements of that development. Tools are not integrated into the culture; they attack the culture, they bid to become the culture. As a consequence, tradition, social mores, myth, politics, ritual, and religion have to fight for their lives." (1) What we see in these statements is a shift in the paradigm in the realm of "knowledge." When he speaks of "technology" in this context, we must think not of the "tools" as the development of function, but "tools" that have become the framework of how we think. We have seen in the realm of science that the scientist's "tools" have come to define the information they can know. This has its most glaring evidence in Quantum Physics. It has been noted concerning light particles, "Entities cannot be said to have particle or wave properties independent of the observations made to measure these properties." (2) As Percey and Thaxton went on to say, "the observer creates what he observes."(3) Needless to say, technology, therefore, has undermined the whole area of "knowledge" in the world of the one who studies physics. "Gone was the confidence in the human ability to discover any coherent truth."(4) I tend to think this undermining has more to do with the "tools" than the "knowability" of what the scientist is seeking to understand. Truth will always have to exist, whether or not it is observed or made sense of. This sense of "unknowingness", however, touches the guy down the street that has never peered into an electron microscope. In fact, the whole culture seems to be asking, "can we be justified in claiming what we know if what we know is merely the product of our "tools?"" He may not be asking this question in so many words, but a sense of uncertainty ,nevertheless, does permeate the whole of our culture. In the past, however, this paradigm was outside the realm of the "technology." Most notable, of course, was the Christian worldview. As Postman notes, " [Medieval theologians] took as a first and last principle that all knowledge and good come from God, and therefore all human enterprises must be directed toward the service of God. Theology, not technology, provided people with the authorization for what to do or think."(5) What has happened, however, is that now we sit in just the opposite chair where technology, not theology provide people with the authorization for what to do or think. One of the best examples of this in our culture is both the television and computer. The notion of "knowledge", and in particular what is "true", is vitally connected to both of these tools in our culture. In fact without reference to these technologies, "knowledge" becomes suspect. Let me state this in its juxtaposition, when referred to, they become a significant authority in any "truth claim." We have all experienced the statement that such-and-such must be true because "I saw it on TV" or "I got it off the internet." It use to be that what was printed held this high position, but the "creditability" of technology has pushed this down the ladder a notch. Let me give example. I presently have a 386 computer and to mention such a thing promptly raises eyebrows and extracts snickers. Now what we tacitly think is that "the old technology is not trustworthy while the new is." Now I willing admit its slowness, but the word processing program still has the same dictionary and thesaurus as the current technology. Take also the weight of television, not owning one leads to an automatic assumption that somehow one is not privy to what is taking place in the world. Again the assertion is that the only valid source for such information is the current technology, in this case the "Big Screen TV". This is exactly what Postman notes, "truth does not, and never has, come unadorned. It must appear in its proper clothing or it is not acknowledged, which is a way of saying that the "truth" is a kind of cultural prejudice."(6) This sounds hauntingly familiar to Marshall McLuhan's statement "The medium is the message." What we need to consider, therefore, is what is the message being communicated and how does this affect Epistemology. Three things I want to note here. First, the responsibility we place upon these technologies. Postman says, "I am constantly amazed at how obediently people accept explanations that begin with the words "The computer shows...."or "the computer has determined..." It is Technopoloy's equivalent to the sentence "it is God's will," and the effect is roughly the same." We have come to a place of uncritical acceptance as the final authority the word of these technologies. Instead of "Sola Scriptura" we have "Sola Data Base." It is the frame work, the world view that orders our lives. Second, the speed at which both of these technologies has changed in the past decade. We all know how fast the technology of these two "tools" change. Even the TV, which for many-a year remained fairly stable in development, has taken to sudden fits of obsolescence generating development. Thirdly, the deceptive illusion that is inherent in these technologies. The power to create illusion is at its greatest in their (computer & television) combined effort, as evidenced in "virtual reality" technologies. We must conclude that it is no wonder a sense of uncertainty underlies our certainty of what can be "known". It is sort of the ultimate catch-22 situation. The very technologies we hold out as our authority in our "knowledge", are the very technologies that we ultimately can not trust as a source of truth. This is what Postman would want us to come to; not the rejection of technology, but the realization that it does not offer us the world view that will keep our wheels on. Lets look now at what Postman suggests as an alternative.

Postman's seems to cling the idea of a metaphysic as a frame work for proper use and placement of technologies, however, this is where his work comes up a little short. He often mentions a wide variety of meta-narratives which he seems to bemoan our abandonment of. For example he says "At risk of repetition, I must point out again that the source of the world's greatest narratives has been religion, as found, for example, in Genesis or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Koran."(7) Because of his all-inclusive view, it seems to me that he holds these things not as a overarching "truth" that makes sense of the particulars, but more of a romantic thought that just sort-a makes sense to hold to. Approaching this from what appears to be a "complementary" position, Postman really does not have any content in the "religion set" to make sense of the "science set". For without the "religious set" having content, particularly in the idea of a designed creation, there is no real place for the "science set" to have a starting point for understanding. For example the Christian has the position to observe the creation because he knows something of the God that created it. Percey and Thaxton agree with this when they note, "Scientific investigation depends upon certain assumptions about the world - and science is impossible until those assumptions are in place."(8) Postman's position, I would insist, offers no more of a world view or "paradigm" as a basis for understanding science than what we have abandoned above.

Let us take a look at Postman's "take" on science. Postman offers a punctuated definition of science when he says "What separates scientific statements from nonscientific statements is that the former can be subjected to the test of fasifiability. What makes science possible is not our ability to recognize "truth" but our ability to recognize falsehood." (9) As far as the author's position on his scientific "view", he suggests a return to the past in terms of education. I would not say, however, that Postman is a romantic concerning the history or philosophy of science. He does not propagate a "return to those thrilling days of yesteryear," but to recapture the teaching of both the history and philosophy of science. "I have stressed the importance of teaching the history of science in every science course, but this is no more important than teaching its "philosophy."(10) "The histories teacher must go far beyond the "event" level into the realm of concepts, theories, hypotheses, comparisons, deductions, evaluations. The idea is to raise the level of abstraction at which "history" is taught."(11) Postman is warning us about the Post-modern man's position of exclaiming with Philip D Kenneson "There's no such thing as objective truth, and it's a good thing too."(12) How disastrous for man to arrive at that point, because he has lost not only the starting place for science, but also the starting place for ethics, history and man as well. Our mistake has been to look to technology for answers. To try to find meaning for our existence within the confines of our own existence will always leave us wanting. Even Jean-Paul Sartre noted, "[an] infinite point is absurd if it has no infinite reference point."(13)

In conclusion, Postman has provided us with a warning concerning our view of technology and its effect on how we view our existence. The warning is that we have placed a credibility on technology that it has no construct to hold. Technology was never meant to make us the "tools" but was meant to be our "tool." Though not to a solid meta-narrative, Postman points to where that creditability ought to be placed. Finally, while we do not look to the past romantically, we must return to the point of departure where history and philosophy of science were taught.

(1)Tehcnolopy, Neil Postman, pg 28,Vintage Books 1992

(2) Einstein as myth, Friedman and Donly, p118, as quoted in Soul of Science, Percey and Thaxton,pg 193, Cross Ways Books 1994

(3) IBID pg 193

(4) IBID pg187

(5) Technolopy, ppg. 25-7

(6) Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman, pg22-3, Penguin Book1985

(7) Technopoly, pg 173

(8) The Soul of Science, pg 21

(9) IBID pg 193

(10) IBID pg 192

(11) IBID pg 192

(12) Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, T.R. Phillips and D.L. Okholm ed, IVP 1995

(13) How Shall We Then Live, Jean-Paul Sartre as quoted by Francis Schaeffer, pg.166 Crossway Books 1976