Carl Mitcham has recently pointed out that the current approach to the ethics of technology has failed to solve large-scale socio-ethical challenges in the technological world, such as climate change. He then suggests that, in the face of an iceberg of issues regarding technological development, philosophers should recognize the intellectual heritage of the classical philosophers of technology to better deal with the escalating crises that threaten humankind. While Mitcham’s proposal is inspiring, there are several lacunae in his work. In this (...) paper, we contribute to Mitcham’s idea by developing it and filling the important gaps. Our efforts have led to a new style of holistic thinking about the ethics of technology, according to which it is necessary to focus on the system of technologies as a whole (while not ignoring individual technologies, of course) to understand and address issues related to technology development. -/- . (shrink)

Many authors have commented on the relative frequency of the present tense—and the relative infrequency of the past tense—in mathematical writing. However, none (to our knowledge) have provided an estimate for the size of this effect or explored how universal it is. In this short note we report an analysis of corpora of mathematical and day-to-day English. We conclude that the present-to-past ratio of tenses is at least 3:1 in mathematical English, compared to approximately 5:7 in day-to-day English. Further, we (...) show that this tendency to favour the present tense is almost universally present in written mathematics. (shrink)

One of the general criteria G. H. Hardy identifies and discusses in his famous essay A Mathematician’s Apology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1940) by which a mathematician’s patterns must be judged is seriousness. This article focuses on one of Hardy’s examples of a non-serious theorem, namely that 8712 and 9801 are the only numbers below 10000 which are integral multiples of their reversals, in the sense that 8712 = 4·2178, and 9801 = 9·1089. In the context of a discussion of (...) generality, which he considers an essential quality of seriousness, he explains that there is nothing in this example which “appeals much to a mathematician” and that it is “not capable of any significant generalization.” Interestingly, since the publication of the Apology, more than a dozen papers—including one by the renowned mathematician Neil Sloane—have been published that discuss generalizations of Hardy’s example. By identifying the most important aspect of Hardy’s notion of generality, it is argued that, contrary to the views of several researchers, Hardy’s claim regarding the non-capability of any significant generalization is still tenable. Furthermore, this case study is presented and discussed as an example of the multifaceted nature of mathematical interest. (shrink)