Order:
  1.  16
    Who owns NATURE? Conceptual appropriation in discourses on climate and biotechnologies.Jeroen K. G. Hopster, Alessio Gerola, Ben Hofbauer, Guido Löhr, Julia Rijssenbeek & Paulan Korenhof - forthcoming - Environmental Values.
    Emerging technologies can have profound conceptual implications. Their emergence frequently calls for the articulation of new concepts, or for modifications and novel applications of concepts that are already entrenched in communication and thought. In this paper, we introduce the notion of “conceptual appropriation” to capture the dynamics between concepts and emerging technologies. By conceptual appropriation, we mean the novel application of a value-laden concept to lay a contestable claim on an underdetermined phenomenon. We illustrate the dynamics of conceptual appropriation by (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2. Steering Representations—Towards a Critical Understanding of Digital Twins.Paulan Korenhof, Vincent Blok & Sanneke Kloppenburg - 2021 - Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1751-1773.
    Digital Twins are conceptualised in the academic technical discourse as real-time realistic digital representations of physical entities. Originating from product engineering, the Digital Twin quickly advanced into other fields, including the life sciences and earth sciences. Digital Twins are seen by the tech sector as the new promising tool for efficiency and optimisation, while governmental agencies see it as a fruitful means for improving decision-making to meet sustainability goals. A striking example of the latter is the European Commission who wishes (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  40
    Escaping the Panopticon Over Time: Balancing the Right To Be Forgotten and Freedom of Expression in a Technological Architecture.Ludo Gorzeman & Paulan Korenhof - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (1):73-92.
    The ‘right to be forgotten’ has been labelled censorship and disastrous for the freedom of expression. In this paper, we explain that effecting the ‘right to be forgotten’ with regard to search results is ‘censorship’ at the level of information retrieval. We however claim it is the least heavy yet most effective means to get the minimum amount of censorship overall, while enabling people to evolve beyond their past opinions. We argue that applying the ‘right to be forgotten’ to search (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark