Murdoch University, Perth
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy
"Policy, Technology and Democracy"
Semester 1

Somewhere between everything and nothing

von: Stefan Krauss

LIST OF CONTENTS

1 FORMATTING THE STATEMENT: HOW TO DEAL WITH IF-QUESTIONS  3

2 AWARDING MEANING: HOW TO DEAL WITH SEMANTIC ILLUSIONS  4

2.1 Sustainability: A potpourri of meanings 4
2.2 To achieve something: Is an ideal achievable?  5
2.3 Developing smarter technologies: A three-part problem 5

3 SUMMARY: A REFORMULATION OF THE STATEMENT  6

4 REFERENCES  6

5 APPENDIX: THE TAUTOLOGY IN DETAIL  6

Can we give answers when we are still unsure of the meaning of the simplest terms in the question? Isn′t this like trying to solve equations of higher algebra before we have the laws of arithmetic straight? The appeal to abandon problems of detail and to turn to the great issues is an appeal to abandon method and to jump to conclusions.

NELSON GOODMAN

1 Formatting the statement: How to deal with If-Questions

The statement "Sustainability can be achieved by developing smarter technologies" can be seen as an affirmative answer to the following question: [1] If: Sustainability can be achieved by developing smarter technologies? If- or respectively decision-demanding-questions allow two possibilities to answer: an affirmative and a negative one. Someone who wants to claim the proposition of the question is obliged to give a proof. Someone who wants to dispute the proposition of the question is obliged to give a refutation. To identify what such a proof or rather a refutation has to contain, it is helpful to note down the question again to show the logical structure more clearly: Is it the case, that

[1′] If developing smarter technologies then Sustainability can be achieved? Obviously it concerns an implication clause, which demands further propositions that allow the transition from the antecedent to the succedent. A tautological transition can be constructed neither taking any scientific ′proofs′ into consideration, nor making any vague prognoses. Only the arbitrary meaning of the term ′smart′ has to be fixed in a goal-directed way: [2] A technology is smart i f f1 it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Making use of the rule of complete substitution of the definiendum and the definiens we get a tautology by putting line [2] in line [1′] and taking the Brundland definition for Sustainability. Someone who accepts the definition [2] and the Brundland one is forced to agree with the statement simply because of locical reasons (? 6). This finding, indeed, leaves one unsatisfied. Thus, further investigations have to be undertaken. Although explications are often given by scientists, it seems to me particulary characteristic of philosophical work that a great part of it is devoted to proposing and discussing explications of certain basic general concepts.

RUDOLF CARNAP

2 Awarding meaning: How to deal with semantic illusions

Terms do not have definite meanings in themselves. Nevertheless, there are subtle feelings, manifold associations, and diffuse ideas connected with them, particularly with ′Sustainability′ and ′smarter technologies′. One can have the illusion of intactness of these terms and is seduced to argue straight away either as an opponent or a proponent of the statement. However, to me this modus operandi does not seem fruitful and is even hazardous. There′s a risk to get into heated and deceptive disputes, which occur only because of a different use of (central) terms. Therefore, the meanings of the speech-parts ought to be fixed.

2.1 Sustainability: A potpourri of meanings

[...]

1 ′Iff′ is used as a short form for ′if and only if′.