Analysis of the Nature and Purpose of the Google Search Engine as One of the Main Technological Artefacts
Analysis of the Nature and Purpose of the Google Search Engine as One of the Main Technological Artefacts
The advent of the first technology implies a constant change of the world. Technology changes not only the world, but also a human being, despite the fact that any technology is created by human. Therefore, examining any kind of technology as a technological artifact, one should consider approaches to the study of this concept, as well as the individual characteristics of the technological artefact. The very notion of technology was transformed at the level of many existing sciences with the advent and development of new technologies. This means that the level of sophistication and functionality of the technological artefact is able to change its nature. As soon as one or the other technical object influences humanity and its interests, it is possible to determine the evolution of the concept of "technological artefact". There are several major versions of relatively new technologies. Some believe that today almost all the technological artefacts are completely autonomous, thus forming a special kind of reality that does not depend on real-world conditions. Nevertheless, the technological artifacts are also defined as no more than the tools created by human to achieve the desired objective. This paper aims at consideration of the nature and significance of such a technological artefact as the Google search engine. For example, the analysis of its origin, meaning, and main functions reveals the true nature of any technological artefact.
During the school project, the two students from Stanford University, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have proposed a new search engine, which today has become one of the most powerful company in the World Wide Web – Goggle (Davis, 2011, p. 13). Initially, the students planned to create a "user-friendly search engine", with which users could view the links that were relevant to their query (Davis, 2011, p. 13). Until now, this is considered the main goal of Google; however, it has significantly expanded its capabilities, and today, it provides users with the e-mail and document storage services. Of course, Google is the best search engine in the world. According to Arthur (2014), its index contains more than 3 billion documents, Google is translated into 26 languages, and the largest portals in the world have chosen Google as the main search tool (p. 95). In a few years, a small Google company consisting of two people has become a huge corporation. The Google search engine is a powerful mechanism. It would be virtually impossible to find information in the World Wide Web without these search engines. Like all the other search engines, Google uses a "special search algorithm for finding the requested results" (Davis, 2011, p. 19). Arthur states (2014), that the company "does not hide some of the main characteristics of the algorithm", though the very peculiar properties of the algorithm are a strict secret of the company (p. 96). Thank to this. Google maintains the leadership position in the Internet and does not allow anyone to hack the system. Like most search engines, the Google search engine uses a program called "spider" or "slider" to automatically select all documents that are referenced in the first selected document: the keywords are entered in a special input string, and then the search starts (Davis, 2011, p. 21). Google's main feature is how the system classifies this search results on its page. The used "PageRank algorithm" sorts all the criteria of semantic web on a corresponding page (Davis, 2011, p. 21).
It can be noted that the Google search engine's technical device is very complex in relation to other technological inventions. If one denotes the Google search engine as a technological artifact, it is possible to start the next analysis, which involves several basic approaches. Historically, the techniques appeared before science and as they reflected the demands of practice. According to Fleck (2000), technical activities and the first technical devices appear almost simultaneously with the appearance of Homo Sapiens (p. 248). Throughout the history of humankind, technology was a unique means of human transformation of the surrounding environment. Only in the 19th century, when "a system of technical knowledge was discovered", public opinion formed the "complex issues that made up the special direction of philosophical reflection" (Fleck, 2010, p. 249). The phenomenon of technology begins to be comprehended rationally, which marks the beginning of the study of technology as a specific artificial entity that affects the life of society. On this basis, it can be said that science and technology have a number of differences. Basically, technology is a complex phenomenon as an artifact, which "laws of development cannot be reduced to the laws of nature or the laws of human action", despite the fact that its development impact both of these concepts (Collier-Reed, Case, & Linder, 2009, p. 297). In addition, "semiotic laws, dynamics of material and spiritual culture, as well as changes in the most technical environment" affect the development of the technological artefacts (Collier-Reed, Case, & Linder, 2009, p. 297). Such an explanation of technology and its mechanisms of development allow considering technology not only as a result, but also as a "specific social process", as "machinery and technical activities occur with the development of humankind" (Collier-Reed, Case, & Linder, 2009, p. 298).
It is necessary to understand what approaches should be used for a complete analysis of the nature of technological artefacts. At present, there are two main approaches to the study of the nature of technological artefacts: i.e. "semantic and pragmatic" (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 2012, p. 17). In addition, it can be said that there is a third approach, which is based on symbiosis of the two approaches that was created with the aim of a wider analysis. According to Ziman (2000), the semantic approach treats artifacts as separate or stand-alone objects. A deep analysis of the nature of technological artifacts from this point of view, it becomes clear that their nature does not depend on the interests of people, i.e. they are "completely autonomous" despite the fact that they are created by human with any purpose (p. 108). A pragmatic approach explores the technological artifacts from the position of their dependence on human activity and society as a whole (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 2012, p. 19). This approach explains the involvement of any technological artifact into the sphere of interests of humankind. The first approach considers the "nature of technological artefacts as a completely independent or autonomous concept"; it examines them as separate physical objects that have certain functions that can be executed automatically and without human intervention (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 2012, p. 19). This approach recognizes the autonomy, as its supporters believe that every technological artifact has its own uniqueness and even consists of physical elements; it should not be limited to them. The semantic approach implies that a technological artifact can be considered as a separate system, which has many integrative features; thus, some parts of the system may not have similar characteristics but only "complement the overall system technically" (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 2012, p. 21).
Being systemic formations, artifacts do not depend on the intentions and values of the people, and therefore, researchers believe that the "technical artifacts form the original technical environment" (Uhl & Gollenia, 2014, p. 57). Some contemporary philosophers acknowledge the existence of hyper-reality and the virtual world, which is directly related to this issue. If one considers the nature of technological artifacts from the viewpoint of the second approach, which is called pragmatic, here the sphere of interests of the people comes first. In other words, the technological artifacts cannot be a full-fledged part of the reality or considered autonomous, as they are directly dependent on the interests of humanity. Here the nature of any technological artifact is reduced to a goal achievement, because humanity creates them in order to perform a task. The proponents of this approach point to the fact of "dependence of technological artifacts on human mentality" (Uhl & Gollenia, 2014, p. 59). Thus, the consideration of this approach reveals a clear contrast to the first approach, i.e. the former approach permits the autonomous nature of the technological artifacts, while the second one rejects it. In addition, it should be said about "the synthesis of these two approaches", which have been created with the "aim to expand the analysis and to achieve greater reliability" (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 2012, p. 18). This approach points to the dual nature of technological artifacts, denying neither its autonomy, nor its social and structural devices. If one considers any technical artifact from the viewpoint of duality, it follows that "the nature of any artifact has a hybrid character" (Fleck, 2000, p. 253). This character may be due to either the quality level of an artifact, or its technical level.
Google as a Part of the Modern Social Process and the Question of Its Autonomy
Over time, the Google search engine becomes more sophisticated. Many specialists work on its software and technical service daily. The permanent professional service does not only support its capabilities, but also improves them. Today, few people can imagine everyday life without the Internet, and the Google search engine provides a competent navigation and any assistance in this complex information network. Therefore, the above characteristics of the technological artefact along with approaches to determining the nature of technological artefacts in general can make it possible to answer the question as to whether the technology can be autonomous today. The answer to this question lies in the value and significance of the selected artefact to the public in its various spheres of activity. Billions of people can continuously and efficiently carry out the communication process and search for the information in the network thanks to Google, which provides a "complete social function of each individual" (Robison, 2007, p. 7). In addition to the social processes, this search engine is also involved in the global cultural process, while "the use of Google also affects the economic processes of any state" (Robison, 2007, p. 13). That is, the scale of this technological artefact is as large as possible. It should also be noted that the majority of the opportunities offered by Google is "virtual and self-regulating" (Robison, 2007, p. 14). This means that this technological artefact can be called autonomous from the viewpoint of semantics. One should take into consideration the fact that all "the information and technical base of the search engine has a physical manifestation in a form of a variety of servers and supercomputers" (Robison, 2007, p. 16). This means that this technological artefact can be considered from the standpoint of pragmatism, so the fact of its autonomy can be refuted. A group of technical experts has created a set of programs and equipment to improve the efficiency of information retrieval. It turns out that a person has a definite purpose, and Google is only a means to achieve it.
Technology is what defines the human evolution, as religion is orthodox and dogmatic, culture is static in its traditionalism, and philosophy is too reflective to change something. The problem of the relation of the natural and the artificial is exposed to significant rethinking, which is especially evident in the contemporary socio-technical studies. If the difference between them was designated as the natural and the human-made earlier, now a similar line of demarcation is drawn between "the systems that self-develop" according to their own laws and the systems that operate "in accordance with the human design" (Arthur, 2014, p. 143). Thus, the concept of "natural-artificial" develops, combining "the artificial origin and the obedience to natural laws" (Arthur, 2014, p. 143). A technical artefact and its complex interaction with social reality imply "the interference of the set of factors of different nature", which cannot be reduced uniquely to a particular scheme (Fleck, 2000, p. 261).
Therefore, if one talks about the Google search engine as one of the most advanced and significant technological artefacts, it should be noted that even the analysis of its nature from the perspective of two or more approaches cannot find the answer to the question of its autonomy. "A human-being is dependent on the material mechanical means of adaptation to the environment since ancient times" (Collier-Reed, Case, & Linder, 2009, p. 299). Hence, the main sphere of human activity in the modern world depends largely on an ability to use new technologies. In fact, "the social system can be realistically defined as an organized effort of human beings to use the tools to maintain the existence of attack, defense, and protection" (Collier-Reed, Case, & Linder, 2009, p. 300). Technological system is primary and fundamental in its importance: every human life and culture depends on technology. How will today's educational process exist without the participation of the Internet and search engines? Certainly, people would feel less comfortable without the use of these technologies. A technological artefact "constitutes the inner and outer world of the post-industrial man" by means of "absorption of the "burden" of human relations" (Ziman, 2000, p. 180). Technology appears to be one of the components of the vital energy of the social system, while technological artefact, which is associated with a new type of interaction, is a stranger to the community, i.e. "the separated individuals as the formal elements of the social structure dominated by a pure rationality" (Ziman, 2000, p. 181). "The union of public relations", which is fragile and efficient at the same time, "is an indirect relationship between human and things, individual and artefact, social atom and technical atom" (Ziman, 2000, p. 182). Therefore, it can be said that the use of the Google search engine has become an integral part of modern life. However, it is impossible to speak about its complete autonomy taking into consideration the technical base and functionality of the artefact. In other words, there is no autonomous technological artefact to date, as they are only fulcrum of human's goals.
Conclusions
The present analysis of the nature of such a technological artefact like the Google search system makes it possible to conclude that the relationship between the society and technology is extremely complex. For a long evolutionary process, people have learned to create and use different techniques, which have become their means of achieving any goal. Hence, the degree of autonomy of the Google search engine as a technological artefact can be defined in several approaches. On the one hand, it may be autonomous, but on the other, it is impossible; such a definition of the technological artefact is determined by its features and physical incarnations. There is also a theory of the hybrid nature of any technological artefact. Even if one considers all the qualities, features, and values of the Google search engine as one of the most important technological artefacts of modern society, yet, it cannot be called autonomous.
References
Arthur, C. (2014). Digital Wars: Apple, Google, Microsoft and the Battle for the Internet (2nd ed.). London, GBR: Kogan Page Ltd.. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (2012). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Collier-Reed, B. I., Case, J. M., & Linder, C. (2009). The experience of interacting with technological artefacts. European Journal Of Engineering Education, 34(4), 295-303. doi:10.1080/03043790902987352
Davis, Y. (2011). Google Secrets. Hoboken, US: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Fleck, J. (2000). Artefact activity: The Coevolution of Artefacts, Knowledge and Organization in Technological Innovation. In J. M. Ziman (ed.), Technological Innovation As an Evolutionary Process, 18, 248-266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robison, Richard. 2007. "Google: A Chronology of Innovations, Acquisitions, and Growth." Journal Of Library Administration 46, no. 3/4: 5-29. Academic Search Alumni Edition, EBSCOhost (accessed March 20, 2016).
Uhl, A., & Gollenia, L. A. (2014). Digital Enterprise Transformation. Farnham, GB: Gower. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Ziman, J. M. (2000). Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
