Technology and Non-Evident Risk – A Contribution to Prevention
CHAPTER II – Technopathogeny –Its disciplinary orphanage and a framing proposal
CHAPTER II Technopathogeny – Its disciplinary orphanage and a framing proposal ‘Every phenomenon needs its own disciplinary home’ I. Introduction We have presented a phenomenon or object of study with a disciplinary void. Being this phenomenon the field of study of this new science, the first requirement to consider Technopathogenology as such is estab- lished. We must then provide the other three elements of the epistemo- logical group (i.e.: Theories, Methodology and Results) in order to be able to speak of the need of creating a new science. In the previous chapter we have observed how by studying two problems associated with technology – mycotoxins and pesticides – we became aware within a year of work of the existence of a phenomenon which was unknown to us upon the creation of PROCABIE in 1984 (formerly INCABIE) (Eguiazu & Motta, 1991). Even though we tried to fit our studies within the environmental sciences framework, more pre- cisely within Anthropo-ecology, we realized that the technopathogeny phenomenon did not adequately fit within this framework. What we mean by this is that we were constantly forced to apply impoverishing reductionisms to the real object of study. Studying something so much reduced and impoverished all but shaded the original phenomenon. In this Chapter we will focus on developing the hypotheses and theo- ries presented which actually support the existence of this disciplinary void and led to the laying down of Technopathogenology which, as every science, as the French philosopher Goblot said, “had experience as its starting point” (Goblot, 1943)...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.