不論是科技與社會研究(STS: science and technology studies)、社會設計(social design)、或是物導向社會學(object-oriented sociology),這些研究取向近年來的興起與茁壯,足以顯示技術(technology)乃至技術物(artifact)已經成為人文社會學領域探究與思考對象。延續前兩年社會學年會中以技術哲學與社會學(philosophy and sociology of technology)為主軸——後人類處境的技術與社會(2020)、新物質主義的社會想像(2021)——的討論,今年我們嘗試納入更多元也更豐富的研究主題與理論取徑,從技術化的感官到穿戴裝置的健康想像、從 AI 驅動的道德決策到線上教學的媒介影響,用總共六篇論文來探索技術(物)如何影響社會、又如何被社會影響,甚至塑造個人生存乃至群體生活的樣態。

摘要：COVID-19 改變了世界原有的進行步驟,以教育面而言,原本的現場教學改為線上教學,它所引發的討論數量暴增,對於師生或社會,是個需面對的社會現象。不論對學生或教師,相較於過往現場親身教學,線上教學的方法與媒體關係,是種由陌生轉親密的過程,它勢必改變社會的觀念與態度。
J. Meyrowitz (1985) 曾連結 E. Goffman 和 M. McLuhan 觀點來討論電子媒介如何讓人們表演的社會舞台重新組合,因此媒介創造出來的環境,可延伸三個主要概念:新媒介、新場景、新行為。Meyrowitz 認為,新媒介形成將造成私人情境融入公共情境,進而產生情境場景合併,而這也將建構出獨特場景,並創造出新行為。
以線上教學而言,師生面對的是新的媒介形式上課的場景,它多數是在自己的私人空間中進行著公眾上課事情,在這樣公私混雜,台上台下難分的課程場景中,它所引發的新行為,相信是疫情裡教育數位轉型中,值得深思與探論的。
Meyrowitz 的觀點常以媒介情境理論(Medium Theory)來說明,他主要是針對電視來做討論,線上教學以網路為主,在不同的媒介環境下,相信更能看出影響的差異。因此,本研究將透過訪談法,以大學師生為主,蒐集師生線上教學的情況,除了以現象與理論進行對話外,並從中反思線上教學帶來的樣態,相信能對疫情下的教育討論帶來新的參考面向。

關鍵詞：線上教學、媒介情境理論

摘要：People are sometimes forced to decision-making involving some situations of moral conflicts with significant influences on one’s interests or freedom, and even concerning life and death choices. There is much
evidence to show that people are not adept at making reliable and even better decisions involving those situations mentioned above due to objective factors such as environmental limitations or complicated considerations and subjective factors such as personal emotional conditions or value conflicts. The paper claims that the development of artificial intelligence's moral decision-making systems (MDMS) to improve people’s decisions involving those situations should deserve more attention and research. The aim of developing such AI systems does not intend to replace human decision-making but to regard them as reference sources for generating better moral decisions to improve the decision-making quality and outcomes made by humans. Negative and positive arguments will support the claim of the paper.
Concerning negative arguments, two types of criticisms of MDMS will be examined: one is methodological, and the other is ontological. Neither of them can be justified and thus refuted in this paper. About positive arguments, an approach that facilitates democratic participation in each stage of designing, developing, and deploying models of MDMS will be proposed. The so-called democratic participation promotes the idea that under the premise that no one has moral superiority for decision-making involving those situations of moral conflicts or dilemmas, not only the domain knowledge of related experts but also the opinions of stakeholders and citizens should be taken into account when selects and operates the features of moral decision-making in related algorithms to design and develop the models of MDMS. The outcomes of deploying the models of MDMS should also be carefully inspected which social groups will benefit from the results and which social groups will be disadvantaged. In particular, the burden on the disadvantaged groups the MDMS will cause should be reasonably supported by the civil society that the models intend to deploy. The generating outcomes of an MDMS which follow the approach of democratic participation can be regarded as the possibilities for better and more reliable moral decisions involving the situations of moral conflicts or dilemmas as stated above. But those possibilities could not be better decisions until people adopt them. The type of moral decisions involving the situations of moral conflicts or dilemmas which people make by adopting or rejecting the outcomes generated from MDMS is characterized by data-driven to AI-driven. It can be called artificial improved moral decision-making.

關鍵詞：AI, moral decision-making systems (MDMS), moral conflicts or dilemmas, democratic participation, AI-driven

摘要：本文以荷蘭技術哲學家 Peter-Paul Verbeek 對 Albert Borgmann 的「參與」(engagement)概念的探討出發,藉由技術的多元角色,思考技術在人與世界的關係中扮演什麼角色。Borgmann 認為技術威脅人與真實之間的關係,甚至會取代真實。Verbeek 則認為 Borgmann 過度悲觀主義式的強調技術的威脅,於是藉由 Borgmann 的「參與」概念,進一步詮釋參與的不同形式以擴大參與的概念。藉由對參與的擴大詮釋,Verbeek 引入技術中介(technological mediation)的概念說明技術如何形成人與真實之間不同的經驗。相較於 Borgmann,Verbeek 提出的技術中介論更多強調體驗真實的不同可能性,技術提供更多元的參與真實的方式。本文將透過布希亞(J.Baudrillard)的「超真實」(hyperreality)概念與傅柯(M. Foucault)的「異托邦」(heterotopia)概念與兩位技術哲學家對真實的思考進行對話。技術是否取消或取代真實或只是介入,進而形成不同的真實參與形式?真實的參照點是以什麼為基礎?Verbeek 的技術中介論呈現較樂觀的立場是否因為尚未把技術的主體化作用納入討論?或者它實則通向傅柯的異托邦虛構?

關鍵詞：真實、超真實、技術中介、傅柯、異托邦