Is the philosophy of science concerned with the technique and the philosophy of technology? And if it isn't, why have philosophers of science shown such indifference to a major aspect of contemporary science?

For Gilbert Hottois, the dominant trend in the philosophy of science sprang from the philosophy of language. This assimilation postulates a conception of science as an essentially language-based, theoretical activity, which remains blind to technology.

Conversely, is the philosophy of technology concerned with science and with the philosophy of science?

According to Hottois, most of the philosophy of technology developed in total ignorance of and indifference to the philosophy of science.

What then can be done to give meaning to a notion such as “technoscience”?

Gilbert Hottois is a professor at the Free University of Belgium, in Louvain, and a member of the European Ethics Council and of the Belgian Bioethics Committee. He is the author of La Philosophie du langage de L. Wittgenstein, Pour une Métaphilosophie du langage, Le Signe et la technique, Penser la logique, La Philosophie des technosciences, Essais de philosophie bioéthique et biopolitique and Technoscience et sagesse?