Yours is a better argument, only because it claims less, and it is actually about science, not technology. Rather than proposing technology as a whole (including its artifacts) is morally neutral, you have limited the scope to the subset of technology which is knowledge (--ogy) i.e. science.
The difference between science and technology is the physical reification: i.e., metallurgy as a body of knowledge vs. a functioning smelter. The fact remains that whenever humans choose to bring artifacts of technology into existence, they imbue intent, which is varyingly good or evil. The less particular the intended purpose of the tool, the fuzzier the morality, until you get to very general technology such as "wheels" and "fulcrums", or retreat into science, as you have done with your examples of "metallurgy" or "ironworking".
I still think it's nonsense to call all technology perfectly neutral, while I agree that science can be.
"technology" is no more good or evil than the physical laws of the universe.
This is utter bullshit.
Technology differs from the laws of the universe precisely because it embodies the intentions of humans to harness said laws for their purposes, good or bad. That is what functionally distinguishes technology from random complexity.
Comments
Yours is a better argument, only because it claims less, and it is actually about science, not technology. Rather than proposing technology as a whole (including its artifacts) is morally neutral, you have limited the scope to the subset of technology which is knowledge (--ogy) i.e. science.
The difference between science and technology is the physical reification: i.e., metallurgy as a body of knowledge vs. a functioning smelter. The fact remains that whenever humans choose to bring artifacts of technology into existence, they imbue intent, which is varyingly good or evil. The less particular the intended purpose of the tool, the fuzzier the morality, until you get to very general technology such as "wheels" and "fulcrums", or retreat into science, as you have done with your examples of "metallurgy" or "ironworking".
I still think it's nonsense to call all technology perfectly neutral, while I agree that science can be.
This is utter bullshit.
Technology differs from the laws of the universe precisely because it embodies the intentions of humans to harness said laws for their purposes, good or bad. That is what functionally distinguishes technology from random complexity.