首页> 外文期刊>Science, Technology and Human Values >Blaming Deadmen: Causes, Culprits, and Chaos in Accounting for Technological Accidents
【24h】

Blaming Deadmen: Causes, Culprits, and Chaos in Accounting for Technological Accidents

机译:责怪死人:技术事故核算的原因,罪魁祸首和混乱

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This article illustrates the shortcomings of an objectivist epistemology in publicly accounting for technological accidents. Public inquiries convened in the aftermath of accidents tend to operate with such an objectivist approach and, as a result, usually assign blame to either or both of two causal culprits: technical malfunction and socio-organizational failure. Following Downer, I argue that a constructivist understanding of technological failure opens the possibility of a third type of cause-one that is epistemo-logical in nature. Public inquiries frequently fail to recognize these "epistemic accidents" and are thereby limited in their capacity to effect positive change. Using the case of a 2003 railway accident near Sydney, Australia, and the public inquiry that was convened in its wake, this article argues that recognizing the epistemological origins of failure holds promise for a more constructive way of accounting for and learning from technological accidents.
机译:本文说明了客观主义认识论在公开解释技术事故方面的缺陷。事故发生后召集的公众调查往往以这种客观主义的方法进行,结果通常是将责任归咎于两个因果元凶之一或两个:技术失误和社会组织失败。在唐纳之后,我认为对技术失败的建构主义理解为本质上是认识论的第三种原因的可能性提供了可能性。公开询问经常未能认识到这些“流行病”,因此其实现积极变化的能力受到限制。本文以2003年澳大利亚悉尼附近的一次铁路事故为例,并在随后进行的公众调查中指出,认识到失败的认识论根源,有望为解决技术事故提供更多建设性的方法并从中汲取教训。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号