航空悖论:为什么我们能“知道”喷气式飞机,却不知道反应堆。

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Minerva Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-06-07 DOI:10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4
John Downer
{"title":"航空悖论:为什么我们能“知道”喷气式飞机,却不知道反应堆。","authors":"John Downer","doi":"10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Publics and policymakers increasingly have to contend with the risks of complex, safety-critical technologies, such as airframes and reactors. As such, 'technological risk' has become an important object of modern governance, with state regulators as core agents, and 'reliability assessment' as the most essential metric. The Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature casts doubt on whether or not we should place our faith in these assessments because predictively calculating the ultra-high reliability required of such systems poses seemingly insurmountable epistemological problems. This paper argues that these misgivings are warranted in the nuclear sphere, despite evidence from the aviation sphere suggesting that such calculations can be accurate. It explains why regulatory calculations that predict the reliability of new airframes cannot work in principle, and then it explains why those calculations work in practice. It then builds on this explanation to argue that the means by which engineers manage reliability in aviation is highly domain-specific, and to suggest how a more nuanced understanding of jetliners could inform debates about nuclear energy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"55 2","pages":"229-248"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Aviation Paradox: Why We Can 'Know' Jetliners But Not Reactors.\",\"authors\":\"John Downer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Publics and policymakers increasingly have to contend with the risks of complex, safety-critical technologies, such as airframes and reactors. As such, 'technological risk' has become an important object of modern governance, with state regulators as core agents, and 'reliability assessment' as the most essential metric. The Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature casts doubt on whether or not we should place our faith in these assessments because predictively calculating the ultra-high reliability required of such systems poses seemingly insurmountable epistemological problems. This paper argues that these misgivings are warranted in the nuclear sphere, despite evidence from the aviation sphere suggesting that such calculations can be accurate. It explains why regulatory calculations that predict the reliability of new airframes cannot work in principle, and then it explains why those calculations work in practice. It then builds on this explanation to argue that the means by which engineers manage reliability in aviation is highly domain-specific, and to suggest how a more nuanced understanding of jetliners could inform debates about nuclear energy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"229-248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/6/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

公众和政策制定者越来越多地不得不应对复杂的、对安全至关重要的技术带来的风险,比如机身和反应堆。因此,“技术风险”已经成为现代治理的一个重要对象,国家监管机构是核心代理人,“可靠性评估”是最重要的衡量标准。科学技术研究(STS)文献对我们是否应该相信这些评估提出了质疑,因为预测性地计算这些系统所需的超高可靠性提出了看似无法克服的认识论问题。本文认为,尽管来自航空领域的证据表明,这种计算是准确的,但这些疑虑在核领域是有道理的。它解释了为什么预测新机身可靠性的监管计算在原则上是行不通的,然后解释了为什么这些计算在实践中是可行的。然后,在这个解释的基础上,它提出了工程师管理航空可靠性的方法是高度特定于领域的,并提出了对喷气客机更细致入微的理解如何可以为有关核能的辩论提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Aviation Paradox: Why We Can 'Know' Jetliners But Not Reactors.

The Aviation Paradox: Why We Can 'Know' Jetliners But Not Reactors.

Publics and policymakers increasingly have to contend with the risks of complex, safety-critical technologies, such as airframes and reactors. As such, 'technological risk' has become an important object of modern governance, with state regulators as core agents, and 'reliability assessment' as the most essential metric. The Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature casts doubt on whether or not we should place our faith in these assessments because predictively calculating the ultra-high reliability required of such systems poses seemingly insurmountable epistemological problems. This paper argues that these misgivings are warranted in the nuclear sphere, despite evidence from the aviation sphere suggesting that such calculations can be accurate. It explains why regulatory calculations that predict the reliability of new airframes cannot work in principle, and then it explains why those calculations work in practice. It then builds on this explanation to argue that the means by which engineers manage reliability in aviation is highly domain-specific, and to suggest how a more nuanced understanding of jetliners could inform debates about nuclear energy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信