Philosophy of technology was not initially considered a consolidated field of inquiry. However, under the influence of sociology and pragmatist philosophy, something resembling a consensus has emerged in a field previously marked by a lack of agreement amongst its practitioners. This has given the field a greater sense of structure and yielded interesting research. However, the loss of the earlier “messy” state has resulted in a limitation of the field’s scope and methodology that precludes an encompassing view of the problematic issues inherent in the question of technology. It is argued that the heterodox disunity and diversity of earlier philosophy of technology was not a mark of theoretical immaturity but was necessitated by the field’s complex subject matter. It is further argued that philosophy of technology should return to its pluralistic role as a meta-analytical structure linking insights from different fields of research. and Filosofi e techniky nebyla zpočátku považována za ucelenou oblast bádání. Pod vlivem sociologie a pragmatické fi losofi e se však postupně začal utvářet určitý konsensus, který dal fi losofi i techniky větší strukturovanost a nová témata k výzkumů. Ztráta dřívějšího „chaotického“ stavu však vedla k omezení rozsahu a metodiky tohoto oboru a znesnadňuje komplexní pohled, který je pro zkoumání technologie nezbytný. V tomto článku budeme zastávat pozici, že heterodoxní nejednotnost a rozmanitost dřívější fi losofi e techniky nebyla známkou teoretické nezralosti, ale nutným důsledkem složitosti zkoumané oblasti. Filosofi e techniky by se dle nás měla vrátit ke své pluralitní roli metaanalytické struktury, která spojuje poznatky z různých oblastí výzkumu.
The paper argues that serious museal restoration and exhibition of technological objects is competing with private collecting and company museums which have better access to funding. The social construction of artefacts as historic sources and as historic communication media is not exclusive and is seriously challenged by other public approaches to the history of technology. and Kurt Möser.