This is the fourth round of the course. This round was a little different from the previous three: the total number of class hours was about the same, but the original 16-week format of 2 class hours per week was changed to an 11-week format of 3 class hours per week. This scheduling was due to a small mistake I made when I first registered the course, but afterward I also decided to go with the flow and see what benefits this arrangement might have.

There were indeed some benefits. First, the course ended off-peak, concluding a month earlier than most courses, which relatively speaking may have eased some of the burden on both teachers and students. As everyone knows, students generally don’t get anxious until a deadline is close; major assignments are usually put off until the last minute, and at the end of the semester all the different major courses are finishing up at once, so there probably isn’t much time left for our elective course. But if the course ends earlier, students may have more breathing room to deal with it. In previous years, students often could not turn in their work by the final deadline and had to submit it late; this year that situation was indeed somewhat better.

The second benefit is that each class period was relatively more ample. Although at times I really did compress what would originally have been one and a half weeks’ worth of material into a single session, more often it was still basically the material of the original 2 class hours per week, but I could speak more relaxedly, add some details, or expand on certain discussions, and in the end leave more time for questions from the audience. I have always believed that the live Q&A segment in class is extremely important. It is a kind of incentive for both teacher and students: it encourages students to listen more carefully and think more seriously, and it also encourages the teacher not to simply recite from the script, but to have a grasp of, and confidence in, all sorts of content beyond the lecture itself. If, after a class is over, the students cannot ask a single question, then the students are not up to par; if the teacher cannot handle the students’ questions, then the teacher is not up to par.

Of course there were downsides too. First, having two evening classes in a row was fine, but when the full 3 class hours ran until nearly 10 p.m., it really was rather late. By the last class, the students were already inattentive, and the teacher was exhausted as well (of course, the main reason was that my course scheduling this semester was poor: I had 5 class hours’ worth of courses back-to-back, and by the end I was simply too tired), so the state of the last class inevitably declined somewhat. Another point is that, in terms of the course content, 2 class hours per unit was actually more or less just right. All in all, in the future I may still need to switch back to the 2×16 rhythm, but depending on student needs and my own arrangements, occasionally changing it to 3×11 is also not bad.

Now, since this course ended in Week 11, why did I only get around to writing this summary when the winter break was almost over? Naturally, because of procrastination…… At the end of last semester there were quite a lot of things going on; work piled on top of work. Although the total workload was actually not that large, things were a bit chaotic, so I never really got around to it. Now, with the new semester almost about to begin, I’d better hurry up and finish this summary first……

The content of this 11-week round was as follows

1. The origins of technology and human civilization
2. Ancient civilizations and technology
3. The Arab world and the medieval mechanical clock
4. Navigation technology
5. The steam engine
6. The Industrial Revolution
7. Electricity
8. Computers
9. The Internet
10. Genetic technology

Among them, navigation technology and genetic technology were newly added in this round of the course. The computer section also gained a good deal of new material thanks to the opening of our museum’s exhibition “Divine Machines and Ingenious Calculations: An Exhibition of Computing Devices,” expanding from 2 class hours to 4 class hours (including the opening of Lecture 9).

Navigation technology mainly covered the European Age of Discovery, including the scientific and technological background required for navigation, as well as the impact of navigation on science and technology. The scientific and technological background of navigation focused on astronomical navigation and the related techniques for measuring latitude and longitude. Europeans were able to launch the Age of Discovery thanks to the compass invented in China (the dry-mount compass commonly used in Europe was also quite possibly independently invented by Europeans), Arab shipbuilding and navigational technologies, plus Greek astronomy and revived cartography, and so on. It was the result of cultural integration and technological integration. In addition, the impact of the geographical discoveries on science and technology mainly included three aspects: first, the formation of the very idea of “discovery” itself; David Wootton says quite a lot about this in The Invention of Science, and there is some truth to it; second, the various rare and exotic treasures brought back by oceanic exploration promoted the rise of the “cabinet of curiosities” tradition and also stimulated the emergence of modern natural history; third, the huge demand for navigational instruments stimulated the prosperity of the instrument industry and also promoted the development and diversification of scientific instruments.

Genetic technology mainly referred to gene-editing technology represented by the gene scissors (CRISPR/Cas9), with the focus on discussions of ethical controversy and institutional construction.

In addition, the “printing technology” lecture, which had been a fixed feature of the first three rounds, was removed; I plan to place it in the new course “Media History and Media Philosophy.”

The course grading still consisted of reading notes plus an in-class final exam. One of the reading notes was plagiarized (copied from a French paper); the others were generally quite good. The final exam was still an open-ended essay test with 4 choices out of 8, but the answer time was increased (to 3 class hours); even so, quite a few students still seemed unable to finish writing. In fact, the time limit is still meaningful, because it is completely open-book and students can search for materials online. So what is the difference between students who pay attention in class and think seriously during the semester, and those who do not listen in class and only come to scrape by on grades at the end? The difference is that, for many questions, the former do not need to look up a lot of texts or sift through a lot of material on the spot; they are already well prepared and at least know the direction in which to search. In that case, they can spend less time on searching and reading, and more time organizing their own ideas.

I have always emphasized that exam questions are not guaranteed not to repeat. This is also to lighten my own burden in the future; otherwise, coming up with seven or eight new questions every year would be pretty tiring (I did try handing the question-setting over to teaching assistants; only the time when Yao Yu did it was good, the last two times were not very successful, and in the end I still made the questions myself). But over the past four rounds, there have in fact not been many substantively repeated questions. Basically, it has mostly just been two questions coming up again and again: one asks students to design a special topic in the history of technology and make a lecture outline; the other is “What is technology?”

The commentary on the first three rounds can be found here: First round, Second round, Third round. This year’s exam paper and commentary are as follows:

Final Examination for “A General History of Technology,” Autumn 2020

Please answer any 4 of the following 8 questions.

Requirements:

1. Handwritten in class; stop writing and hand in your paper when class ends.
2. Open-book: books and computers may be consulted, and information may be searched online, but social media and Q&A communities may not be used; complete the exam independently.
3. No plagiarism or stealing of others’ work. Any quoted or borrowed words should be indicated with quotation marks or other conspicuous markings. Sources may be written briefly, such as (cf. Wang Zheran: “Pascal’s calculator……”)
4. These are all open-ended essay questions with no standard answers; they are meant to show independent thinking, not to repeat what others have said.

1. What, exactly, is technology? Can you give a concise definition and illustrate it with historical examples?
2. In the introductory lecture, I used the example of chairs, which are now utterly commonplace, to show that when they first became popular they also had an impact on society and culture. Can you give one or two more examples: technological inventions that seem ordinary today, but caused a shock when they first became popular in a certain era or culture?
3. In McLuhan’s Understanding Media, there is a chapter called “The Clock: The Scent of Time.” How should we understand the relationship between the clock and scent, and the connection between clock technology and the various senses?
4. Why was longitude measurement important for ocean navigation? Briefly outline the history of technological development related to longitude in Western navigation history.
5. What is the “Industrial Revolution”? Please give a concise definition and explain it in light of the history of technology.
6. Briefly explain how the military demands of World War II promoted the development of computer technology. Besides military needs, what other intellectual and cultural backgrounds did modern computer technology have?
7. What is “information technology”? Please give a concise definition and explain it with examples.
8. Do you think gene-editing technology will be able to be used for designer babies in the near future? If not, how should the development of the technology be restricted? If yes, is it still necessary to impose limits on its development?

Exam Commentary

1. What, exactly, is technology? Can you give a concise definition and illustrate it with historical examples?

This is an old question. I analyzed it long ago. The key point is to connect it with historical examples, that is, to use examples to explain why certain technologies fit the definition, especially to talk about some uses that do not seem to fit very well at first glance. But I feel that this year’s performance on this question was actually worse than in previous years, because the students seemed to have read more of the definitions I have written or introduced, such as Kevin Kelly’s “the not-yet-perfectly-functioning thing,” my own “the learnable thing,” and McLuhan’s “the extension of man.” A few students listed all of the above plus explanations from Baidu Baike and the like one by one. I asked for “a” concise definition, and they practically wanted to give me five at once. But that actually makes things worse. If one does not have the ability to explain them in a unified way, listing several more definitions just makes a mess.

In asking for “a concise definition,” many people ignored the “a,” while others ignored “concise” and gave definitions in rambling, lengthy strings. They may have seemed very thorough, but that is not necessarily a good thing. What, after all, is a good definition? It feels as though many students have too strong a scientific-and-engineering mode of thinking, always wanting to give a very precise definition. But what we need is a definition of an everyday word, not a definition of a mathematical symbol. In many cases it is neither possible nor necessary for a concise definition to cover every situation. So after the definition, some explanation and examples are still needed to flesh it out. These explanations will inevitably involve vagueness and exceptions as well, and we can further clarify them if needed, but there is no need to insist on total exhaustiveness.

Take the word “guanggun” for example. Its usual meaning refers to “an unmarried man”; its literal original meaning is “a bare stick.” Sometimes it is not limited to men and can refer to “an unmarried person.” Sometimes people who have divorced or been widowed after marriage can also be called guanggun, though sometimes that is not appropriate. At other times it is extended to mean “someone with nothing tying him down, and therefore able to throw caution to the winds” (I’m just a guanggun, what can I do, and so on)……

We can see that even a very simple word like “guanggun” (bachelors are all unmarried, and this is often used as an example of an “analytic proposition,” but in actual usage the proposition is in fact not always true) has a shifting meaning, with a core and boundaries. Some uses are most central, while others are derivative or extended. And among different uses, the degree of fit is not completely uniform.

Our definition of “technology” is similar: giving a concise definition does not require that the definition indiscriminately cover every possible use of the word “technology.” But if the definition is appropriate, it should be applicable to the main contexts in which we use the word technology in daily life, and in other contexts we should also be able to find connections or metaphors, so that we can accept these extended uses.

For instance, if technology is “the extension of man,” then the core image revealed by this definition is those technological tools with a strong bodily dimension, such as hammers (extensions of the fist), telescopes (extensions of the eye), cars (extensions of the legs), and so on. But other technological objects with a weaker bodily dimension and greater independence are not so fitting, such as clocks, engines, electric grids, and so on. Then we need further explanation: for example, although they are not extensions of a single human organ, they are still extensions of human bodily functions; or, they are composites, aggregations of multiple simple “extensions” that gradually separate themselves from the human body; or, the so-called extension of man does not only mean the extension of bodily capacities, but also the extension of spirit and intention—for instance, the clock is an extension of humanity’s concept of time, the steam engine is an extension of humanity’s will to pursue power, and so on.

This question gives an open-ended definition; the key lies in carrying it through to historical cases in the history of technology for explanation. Which cases are the most fitting core cases, which are marginal or extended cases, and what are the advantages of this definition (for example, what common features of various technologies does it reveal)? In short, if the definition is “concise,” the cases are fitting, and the explanation is self-consistent, then a high score can be earned.

There were 105 examinees in total. This question had the second-highest number of takers, with 73 students choosing it. Yet it received the lowest average score, 20.88.

2. In the introductory lecture, you gave the example that chairs, which now seem utterly commonplace, also caused some shock to society and culture when they first became popular. Could you give one or two more examples: technological inventions that today seem very ordinary, but caused a shock when they first became popular in a certain era or culture.

This is actually a variant of the old exam question “outline for a special lecture on the history of technology,” except that now you can no longer simply choose any technology at random; rather, some specific requirements have been added, and these requirements are such that students can only answer well if they have understood the examples from the introductory lecture.

The example of the “chair” in the introductory lecture was first mentioned by Kevin Kelly. When he compared computers and chairs while saying that technology is “things that are not yet working properly,” his point was that we now think of computers as technology, whereas a chair is “just a chair” because the chair has already “worked properly” and already “does its job.” Then I cited a remark by Lu You of the Southern Song: “In the families of scholars and officials in former times, if women sat on chairs or stools, people would all mock them as lacking proper decorum.” We can see how this brief sentence condenses so many layers—“history, class, gender, technology, society, psychology, ethics,” and so on—showing the particular shock chairs had on culture (their impact on traditional ritual propriety).

This example is a very good one: first, chairs seem especially “ordinary” to us today; second, their social and cultural impact really can be articulated.

In fact, many of the technologies mentioned in my course could be used as examples. For instance, mechanical clocks: born out of the cultural tradition of monasteries, and later, with capitalism and industrial civilization, expanded across the globe. Or printing, which (though I did not discuss it this time) promoted the circulation of Buddhist scriptures in China and stimulated the Renaissance in the West. Or railways—the book Travel by Rail, which I particularly recommend, points to the railway’s influence on travel culture and capitalism. Or the telegraph, which arose in the cultural context of the French Revolution and, when it became popular, helped spur the rise of mass media (newspapers), the financial industry, and even spiritualism. Finally, computers and the internet are of course also examples, but these two are relatively weaker, because in the present day they do not seem ordinary enough.

Besides the examples I discussed, students also came up with quite a few of their own. Many of them were already within my own imagination too, such as glass and photography. There were relatively few that struck me as especially novel, but relatively speaking, as long as one can make the general case make sense, the score will not be too low.

Sixty-seven students chose this question (the third most), with an average score of 21.87 (the second highest).

3. In McLuhan’s Understanding Media, there is a chapter called “Clocks—The Scent of Time.” How should we understand the relation between clocks and scent, and the connection between clock technology and the various senses?

This question involves a book assigned as outside reading; I also recommended it in class. But in fact, even if you do not read the relevant text, you can still manage to answer, because in class I had already emphasized the proposition that clocks intensify vision. Of course, if you only attend class without thinking or reading, this question is still relatively difficult.

My requirements for students in this course were not high; mainly, I did not make outside reading compulsory. In fact, this kind of general-education course is best paired with outside reading for it to be truly meaningful. Although I do not strictly require it, I do give suggestions and provide a reading list, so interested students can find plenty of materials to read.

This question had the fewest students choosing it, 30 in all. The average score was relatively high, 21.7. Of course, a few students clearly had not read the book at all; they blindly answered based on the wording of the question and failed to grasp the key point either (I suspect they also did not pay much attention in class), so their scores were lower. If one can clearly show that one has indeed read the relevant text, the score is quite good.

4. Why is the measurement of longitude important for deep-sea navigation? And briefly outline the history of technological development related to longitude in Western maritime history.

This question is rather special. Relatively speaking, it is more “objective”; there are not many elements of subjective interpretation. It mainly tests your command of and ability to organize relevant material, as well as the coherence and smoothness of your exposition.

Longitude measurement is mainly for better positioning during ocean voyages, and of course it also helps with the drawing of nautical charts.

As for the history of technology, at least the following stages should not be left out: ancient Greece, Columbus, Galileo, and Harrison. Before Harrison’s marine chronometer, astronomical observation was the mainstream method, mainly using solar and lunar eclipses; after Galileo, methods emerged that used more complex astronomical observations, such as Jupiter’s moons, to determine longitude. Harrison and his improved marine chronometer made the clock method gradually popular. Of course, even earlier there had been imprecise measurements using timekeeping devices such as sandglasses. After Harrison there were many further developments. The more completely one explains it, the higher the score, of course.

If this question contains serious factual errors in objective knowledge, many points will be deducted. Most students did not make major mistakes, and were judged mainly on clarity and organization.

Forty-two students chose this question, with an average score of 21.21.

5. What is the “Industrial Revolution”? Give a concise explanation, and explain it in relation to the history of technology.

In this question I used “explanation” rather than “definition.” My own understanding is that the “Industrial Revolution” is a specific reference to a particular historical period; that is to say, there is only that one Industrial Revolution, so it is not really a matter of “definition.” For example, if you ask “Who is Hu Yilin?” I can give some “explanations,” but I do not need to give a “definition.” For instance, “Hu Yilin is a teacher at Tsinghua University” is an explanation, but not a definition. Only “A is B, B is A” counts as a definition.

Of course, if you regard “Industrial Revolution” as a concept that can be plural, something that can happen many times, then you can also give a “definition,” so that as long as something like this happens, you can say that there has been another Industrial Revolution.

The key to this question is to make clear exactly what “industrial” means, what “revolution” means, what is being overthrown in a revolution, and what new things are being established. Then what is the relation between all these questions and the history of technology? Is it that technological innovation itself is part of the revolution, or that technological innovation drove the development of the Industrial Revolution?

However, in the students’ actual answers, they did not seem to care much about conceptual explanation; instead they focused more on organizing the history of technology—steam engines, the textile industry, railways, and so on. In general, as long as the line of thought is clear and the structure is orderly, one can still get a decent score.

Forty-two students chose this question, with an average score of 21.48.

6. Briefly explain how the military needs of World War II promoted the development of computer technology. Besides military needs, what other intellectual and cultural backgrounds did modern computer technology have?

The first half of this question is relatively objective. It is nothing more than the development of cryptography and the demands of radar and fire-control technology, as well as the needs of ballistic calculations and atomic bomb research. These demands can be roughly summed up as three items: first, encoding and decoding; second, real-time control; third, massive calculation. Students basically could all answer the relevant military needs (the three-item summary is my own formulation; no student answered it that way).

The second half is open-ended, but I also discussed quite a few such backgrounds in class: for example, beginning with the Napier bones, the idea of using devices to “prepare in advance” the relevant steps of calculation; Leibniz’s dream; the idea of “programming” in advance represented by Jacquard’s loom; Boole’s algebra of logic and the later ideas of mathematical logic; Turing’s idea of universal computation. In terms of general cultural background, one could also discuss how the emerging conception of information, since the telegraph, gradually took root in people’s minds, and so on.

The intention of my question was to ask what other backgrounds there were to the birth of modern computer technology, but the wording was not very rigorous, so some students answered with the cultural background of the further development of computers, which was also acceptable. For example, someone mentioned how game culture promoted computers, which was also good. But it is not so good to mention only later developments without mentioning the background to their birth. In addition, many students did not seem to understand what is meant by “intellectual and cultural background,” and wrote only technical backgrounds, such as mechanical hand-cranked calculators. Of course this is a background to modern computers, but not an intellectual background, unless one clearly explains the ideas embodied by mechanical calculators, such as “pre-calculation” and “assisted calculation.”

Fifty-seven students chose this question, with an average score of 21.11.

7. What is “information technology”? Give a concise definition, and explain it with examples.

This question is similar to the first one, but with the additional restriction of “information technology.” The requirements are similar as well: the definition should be concise, but more important is the explanation. The added word “information” is of course the key point that still needs explanation. What exactly is information? According to information theory, it would seem that everything orderly is information, and anything organized is information. But then the concept of “information technology” becomes vague. For example, a house is of course orderly; does the building technology that establishes the orderliness of a house count as a kind of “information technology” too? Perhaps one could say so, but it would require a more systematic explanation. After all, what made the term “information technology” familiar was not building technology, nor even writing technology, but technologies related to computers. So what is the core case of information technology, and how did the emblematic transformation in the history of technology come about? That is what needs to be explained. In my view, the telegraph was the forerunner of modern “information technology.” The telegraph completely separated “information” from the “messenger,” turning information into something formless, omnipresent, and invisible, thereby making information as information itself visible, rather than as an appendage attached to a particular medium. By the time of the modern electronic computer, the ideas of digital calculation, logical programming, and so on combined with the ideas of information and coding; the computer, this “calculator that can calculate calculators,” broke through the “dimensional wall” of the traditional world’s “calculator—calculating tool—object of calculation,” so that everything could become an “object of calculation,” triggering the “digitalization” of the world picture and ultimately allowing “information technology” to stand on its own.

But almost no student thought about the question the way I do. Everyone’s answers were basically conventional and standard, with very little digging to the roots of things. Of course, the question is open-ended, and I do not require students to answer according to my line of thought, so as long as one can make a coherent case and the reasoning is clear, one can still get a high score.

Thirty-one students chose this question, with an average score of 21.25.

8. Do you think gene-editing technology could be used to custom-make babies in the near future? If not, how should technological development be restricted? If so, is there still a need to restrict technological development?

The final question is also rather distinctive. This question is almost entirely subjective. The reason for setting it was simply to encourage students to pay attention to and reflect on the relevant issues; it did not require them to take a definite side.

The wording “could be used” is somewhat ambiguous: does it mean “could be realized” in technical terms, or “could be carried out” in an ethical sense? But judging from the second half of the sentence, my question should be understood mainly from ethical and legal perspectives; still, students could also discuss it from a technical angle. The question can be discussed from technical, ethical, legal, and factual angles.

Whichever level one considers, this question is not a simple either-or matter; it is one where various complex and exceptional situations can be taken into account. For example, we say “one must not kill.” Many people agree with this in ethical and legal terms. But at the same time, a considerable number of those who agree that “one must not kill” also agree that “he who kills shall be killed,” meaning that under a certain legal system, it is also acceptable for specific people (executioners) to kill specific people (murderers). “One must not kill” and “he who kills may be killed” are not only not contradictory; they may in fact support each other.

So, when it comes to the application of gene-editing technology, one may also adopt a complex attitude. Besides absolute rejection, one can also support gene-edited babies under specific procedures while rejecting abuse.

Whether or not I myself agree, as long as one presents a viewpoint, recognizes the complexity contained within it, and makes it internally coherent, it is a good answer. Of course, even if the thinking is not deep enough, I will still give points as appropriate as long as it shows personal reflection; this question was graded very leniently.

This was the most popular optional question, and also the one with the highest average score: 77 students chose it, with an average of 22.36 points.

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.

Subscribe to new posts

Subscribe

After submitting, click the confirmation link in your inbox to complete the subscription.

Advanced: subscribe only to selected topics

AI 与技术未来 Web3 与密码朋克 哲学与思想 教学与课程 文化与公共评论 生活与随记 科学史与学术 站务与琐事

勾选后只收所选主题的新文章；不勾选则订阅全部。