Pseudotechnology Revisited: A Commentary

This commentary discusses Gustavo Fernández Acevedo’s recent proposal for the definition of pseudotechnology. While recognising the value of his attempt to refine Hansson’s influential account, we argue that several aspects of the proposed definition require further clarification. First, we investigate the logical relationship among the proposed defining conditions and argue that they do not perform the same philosophical function. We then question whether the falsity of the declarative statements underlying a technology can be regarded as constitutive of its pseudotechnological status, drawing on historical examples in which technological success preceded or persisted despite changes in its theoretical justification. Finally, we discuss the implications of treating contemporary evaluative standards as an independent defining criterion. We conclude that irreparable dysfunctionality should remain the constitutive feature of pseudotechnology, whereas the falsity of underlying statements and the absence of appropriate validation are better understood as defeasible epistemic indicators rather than defining conditions.