Beach Haven

Peletz, Steve. 2021. "Citizen Science: Helping Marine Biologists Push for Larger MPAs."
Alert Diver, 37 ed.:14-16
https://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=58549&i=693521&p=15&ver=html5.

The publisher of this magazine is Divers Alert Network (DAN). The organization specializes in helping injured SCUBA divers globally. As a PADI certified Dive Master the digital version comes to me each quarter. I tend to read several articles per edition. This time my eye was captured by this posting on divers as citizen scientists. I think it grabbed me because in my academic studies I have reviewed a number of writings on the topic.

The idea of doing citizen science while diving may be attractive to divers who have perhaps done plenty of sight-seeing dives, and are interested in blowing bubbles with more purpose. To be of use, though, one should work with some sort of program. With science, it’s all about data consistency and integrity. Some form of technology will inevitably be used beyond basic SCUBA gear, even if it is as simple as a way count fish types and numbers. The work may also involve some sort of sophisticated device.

Scientists may be mixed about enlisting the help of non-scientists. It takes more work on the part of the scientific organization. Participants need at least some information about what they are to be doing and why. Because the citizen participants may vary with each dive that makes for a lot of briefings. Scientists also wonder if the data they gather from their temporary assistants will be accurate. Despite these misgivings, some scientists see involving non-scientists as a plus. More people involved means more support for their efforts. Work can get done quicker than with fewer trained people. Involving citizens may also inspire future scientists as well.

I agree with some scientists that involving general citizenry takes more effort. In the case of SCUBA diving however, the participants are at least partially trained in that they already have the skills needed to work in the environment. I also argue that avoiding use of non-scientists to collect data is short sighted. An individual project may be more controlled, but it will take longer and cost more. The reluctance to use non-scientists includes an underlying assumption that the untrained citizen can’t be successful in tasks unless they have all the background information a fully trained scientist does.
​
For this periodical I’ve included a link in the reference above. I hope it works for readers. The early part of the document includes strong language against republication, so I am not including my normal pdf copy as I have with other article reviews. If you want to read it and have difficulty downloading it, put a note in the comments section and I’ll see what I can do.

Latour, Bruno. 2009. "A Collective of Humans and Nonhumans: Following Daedalus's Labryrinth." Chap. 11 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 156-167. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Bruno Latour is a seminal author in the field of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) as the architect of a set of ideas that have come to be known as actor-network theory (ANT). This excerpt was originally a portion of chapter 6 of one of his published books titled Pandora’s Hope. One of the base tenets of ANT is that anyone, or anything, or any group can be considered an actor (or more precisely an actant) in a network supporting a technological system. The more actors/actants in a supportive system, the more accepted the system is. Eventually, a heavily supported system is no longer scrutinized. It fades into the background as a nested system or ‘black box’ that nobody questions anymore.

This particular piece is focused on the idea of technical mediation, or ways in which one node in an ANT network influences another. Interference is a mediation when agent 1 enlists agent 2, and together they become agent 3. For example, a person enlists a gun, and together they become a killer. Composition is a mediation where an actor’s goal becomes interrupted by some obstacle, they seize another agent and return to the original goal (overcomes the obstacle). Folding of time and space is another mediation for Latour. In this example goals are redefined by nonhuman actants. A speed bump slows us down in a parking lot, not so much because we don’t want to injure a pedestrian, rather we don’t want to injure our car. The designers and builders of the speed bump are not present at the time when we cross the so-called ‘sleeping policeman’, yet use of technology by them in the present adjusts (mediates) our action with the technology of the car and the parking lot. The speed bump and the technology to create the speed bump are nested black boxes to the larger system of transportation through cars and roads. The last mediation is about crossing the boundary between signs and things. A change in technology is used to modify behavior, and behavior modifies the technology. Parking lot speed signs and painted crosswalks are intended to serve the same purpose as a speed bump. If a parking lot owner decides the technology of speed limit signs and painted lines do not invoke the behavioral change of slowing down, then the behavior inspires the addition of a speed bump, which in turn modifies the behavior of not slowing down.

The biggest critique of Latour and ANT has been his emphasis on actors, and ignoring of non-actors. If a person, thing, or group does not directly affect a technological decision, then they are effectively ignored. In the speed bump example, what of those who never drive? What of those who ride bicycles or walk? What of those who pay no taxes to fund the road or parking lot? For Latour they are not considered, but tax payers who don’t drive are also not considered since they have no direct impact on the technology. Despite this, the technology has some impact on them since they pay taxes, though any one person’s taxes are not directly attributed to the individual project of the speed bump.
​
The basic concept of mediation is a large one in philosophy, including to the specific branch of philosophy of technology. Are technological artifacts a result of societal values? Are societal values shaped by the technology available to a given society? Do society and technology ‘co-construct’? Is there an intent within a specific artifactual device? Is the device neutral, and the intent only lies within the person or society creating or employing the device? These are basic concerns of philosophy.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

This past Saturday I decided to take advantage of nice weather and a little time on my crowded schedule to go for a trail run. I went to Crow’s Nest Natural Area Preserve near our home. I have run all the trails in this place a number of times over the years. This particular run was along the Crow’s Nest Point Trail. 

A few hundred yards from the far end of the trail, near the point, there sits a monument containing a set of tableau erected on behalf of the Daniel family. They were early owners of the property that encompasses what is now Crow’s Nest. I sometimes hike the paths with a camera and shoot pictures. Sooner or later I'd like to get a stabilizing mechanism for my SLR and shoot a set of videos showing each of the paths. In either case, I thought I’d document for this blog the words on the memorial at the end of the trail. The far right tableau speaks to the family graveyard. I have not walked around to see if other headstones exist, but on initial look there are no more than what you see there. There are three flag stones on the ground in front of the memorial, but they contain no text. They may correspond to the three tableau above them, but it is not clear.
​

Tableau 1 Text
A testimonial of love and veneration for one who merited and possessed the veneration and love of all by whom he was known one faithful and exemplary in every domestic and social relation in every duty of a Christian: TRAVERS DANIEL, Senr. Born May 26, 1741 – Died June 18, 1824
​

Tableau 2 Text
This marble is erected in affectionate remembrance of the devoted wife, the tender mother, the humble and pious Christian: FRANCES DANIEL, (illegible) Travers Daniel, Senr. (birth and death dates illegible)
​

Top Center Grave Stone Text
Here lies the body of ELIZA TRAVERS DANIEL daughter of Travers and Mildred Daniel who departed this life in her 21 year Oct 29th, 1823 In the hour of death so strong was her faith in the savior of the world that her fondest friends in meditating on what they witnessed forbore to weep at what they lost: they communed with their own hearts and were still.

Bottom Center Grave Stone Text
E.T.D. (for Eliza Travers Daniel)
​

Tableau 3 Text
To the memory of Mrs. MILDRED DANIEL who was born in Charles County, Maryland Feby. 27th 1772 and died in the County of Stafford Virginia, October 17th 1837. She was the widow of TRAVERS DANIEL & daughter of Thomas Stone of Maryland, a signer of the declaration of Independence. Mrs. DANIEL lived and died an exemplary Christian. “Precious in the sight of the Lord in the death of his Saints.”  I. Psa. 116:15
​

Tableau 4 Text
DANIEL FAMILY GRAVEYARD
“Crow’s Nest”, 3500 acres, was granted to Raleigh Travers in 1665. He married Hannah Ball. Their daughter Sara, aunt of George Washington and great aunt of James Madison, married Peter Daniel, Justice of Stafford County. He was the son of James Daniel and Grandson of Capt. William Daniel, who settled in Middlesex County in 1669. Their son, Travers Daniel, 1741-1824, married Francis Moncure and had eleven children. Among them were:

Raleigh Travers Daniel, 1763-1824, married Mildred Stone, daughter of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was twice Attorney General of Virginia and Lt. Governor.

Peter Vivian Daniel, 1784-1813, first married Maria Niven in Scotland, where he had studied medicine. Second, Margaret Stone, sister of his brother’s wife. Their grandson, John Moncure Daniel III was minister to Italy and editor of the Richmond Examiner.

Dr. J.M. Daniel’s third marriage was to Maria Vowles in 1810. Their son, Dr. John Henry Moncure Daniel, 1813-1891, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and married Fenton Mercer Brooke, 1828-1875. Their three sons, John Moncure, Selden Brooke, and Thomas Cushing were born at Crow’s Nest before the home was destroyed during the northern invasion.
​
Erected by their descendants 2002

A few postings ago I wrote about an article I read in National Geographic. I was favorable on the content, but somewhat critical of the television channel created by the same brand. After I posted, it hit me I had not watched the channel much lately. Truth be told, I haven’t been much of a TV watcher for quite some time. I have nothing against the medium. I worked in that part of the business for nine years. Other sorts of media, mostly reading, just keep my attention these days. I thought perhaps I should remind myself how Nat-Geo and similar channels present themselves lately. In some sense of fairness I started watching the cable version of the product, and some of its direct competition as a sort of research sampling.

Unlike ‘real’ research there is nothing written down, no data to analyze, no hypotheses to either support or refute through statistical patterns. Instead I just made time to watch some hours of Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History. These three in the past were similar in content approach with a similar appeal. To be at least somewhat thorough in my shabby research, I note that each of these offers a traditionally programed cable channel as well as a number of online video options. I focused on the cable channel version of Nat-Geo. I also looked at some of the program descriptions available online. So what did I find in this very loosey-goosey amateur research?

I was still disappointed to some degree with History and Discovery. Both had some interesting (to me) programs, but their line up seems more and more filled with reality shows that don’t seem to match the brand name, and competition shows that also seem misaligned. Of the three, Nat-Geo seemed closer to my fuzzy idea of what they are supposed to be about. Nat-Geo also has some ‘reality’ shows, but these seem more like documentaries about some real-life setting, and less like unscripted (or scripted) soap-operatic peep shows. To be fair to History and Discovery, they had these better quality programs also, but fewer of the better version, and more of the not-so-good sort. I’m ok with reality shows that are more like documentaries that are showing real life, but not so much with shows called ‘reality’ but are clearly anything but real.

One thing that does bug me a bit about all three of these offerings. They each clearly have quality tiers. For Nat-Geo, the content offered on cable is generally ok, but their best quality (the sort I might have more interest in) is guarded behind the Disney+ pay wall. It almost feels like the cable version is the tease to get you to pay for ‘the good stuff in the back room’. This is not unique to Nat-Geo. The business model of online streaming channels you have to pay for to get better stuff sooner is quickly becoming the norm. Just about every network out there now has a paid streaming service. The model really does lend itself to an ala carte. That would great if we lived in an area where we could just get Internet without cable. Sadly that’s not the case for us. The only real option we have for Internet comes from Comcast. Since they have no competition where we live they will not allow you to purchase Internet without also bundling their cable service. Every year they mess with the channels (to more and more stuff we don’t care to watch), and jack up the prices. It’s pretty ridiculous. The amount they charge makes it difficult to justify paying them and separately paying a handful of online streaming providers that we might actually want to watch now and then.

Some of the better programming on Nat-Geo, Discovery, and History is offered outside the pay wall, but it tends to be older shows. The truth is that’s ok to me since if it’s the first time we watch something, it may not be new but it’s new to us. On the other hand, some of the show trailers can be enticing and make me wonder if we should give in and scratch up the fee. So far the answer to this last question has been a resounding NO!

I don’t know what these business model shifts in media mean exactly. All three of these educational content providers are for-profit entities. The fact that they feel pressured to shift away from their original name-sake focus to something that less represents it could be a statement about us as an audience. If we weren’t up to watching something that helped us learn something then perhaps they are simply succumbing to our own focus on escapism in order to stay profitable. Perhaps, and maybe the more likely, is I’m just getting older and stuffier. 

Brey, Philip. 2009. "Philosophy of Technology Meets Social Constructivism: A Shopper's Guide." Chap. 7 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 98-111. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, and Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
In his ‘Shopper’s Guide’ approach to spelling out ways social constructivism could compliment the philosophy of technology, Philip Brey offers at least a partial answer to Langdon Winner. The latter had judged in previous writings that if one were to open the proverbial black box of Bruno Latour, one would find no tangible additions to philosophy by social constructivists. Winner argued this was because social constructivism harbored definitions that are too narrow in scope. To Brey, social constructivism does examine areas Winner claimed it was ignoring.

Philip Brey offers generalized descriptions of the ‘strong’ and ‘mild’ approaches of research (his shopper's guide). He agrees that the strict adherence to the symmetry principle in the strong program can inhibit some, but not all, philosophical supporting research. He claims the philosophy of technology is too abstract. It does not examine any particular technology or its impacts. Testable arguments within the philosophy of technology are often not supported by empirical evidence, he notes. Experiments and data derived through social constructivist research, Brey argues, can help philosophers of technology construct more realistic theories.

​For Brey, artifacts are socially shaped, but also embody a script that can influence outcomes. Social constructivism, he argues, allows normative and evaluative philosophical analyses of technology and its impacts not otherwise possible. He does temper his argument stating, “these approaches, if valid, do suggest new directions for the philosophy of technology” (p. 108). Brey had suggested throughout the article that the proverbial black box was not empty as Winner suggested, but was filling up as social constructivist research expanded, and rigid adherence to the symmetry principle was vacillating. One could argue that this idea of adjustment to the symmetry principle results in something other than social constructivism. Brey weakens his argument by adding the caveat “if valid” to his closing statement.

​The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Anyone who knows me also knows that I’m not some sort of radical tree-hugger. At the same time, anyone who knows me also knows I’ve spent a lot of time in the wilds of this world, and I care about the planet. I do believe that God gave Adam and Eve and their descendants (us) a stewardship to take care of this world. There are many people who take political positions on both extremes of what we used to call conservation. Some would either seek to push us into paths that would have a strong negative impact on human life and livelihood through an overly restrictive approach. Others seek deeper exploitation with little-to-no restriction. In the midst of such heated polemics, I’m always happy to see good ideas that are neither irrationally restrictive, nor blatantly exploitative. I like practical ideas that are actually put into use.

While we were visiting relatives over the holidays this past year, my father-in-law decided I would be a target for his efforts to ‘spring clean’. For Christmas he gave me a stack of his National Geographic magazines, yes the printed variety. I’m already up to my eyeballs in reading between work, school, church, and even the occasional pleasure-read. Having yet another reading pile wasn’t exactly what I was looking for. On the other hand, I have respect for this particular brand, even if their TV channel seems less and less to mission. Last month I randomly pulled one out, and unlike the TV version, I was not disappointed.

The edition is from March of 2020. There is good story variety in this particular publication. Rather than add to anyone else’s paper pile, I’ll include a link to the online version of this specific edition. Then anyone can follow up if they have a mind to, and we won’t need to ship around a re-gift.

The main headline is an evocative assertion: “The End of Trash”. Although that statement seems unlikely, the focus is on ideas related to a circular economy with a growing emphasis on turning our waste into something useful. Although not completely circular, the idea of generating power through incineration is also not a new one. Since plastics are derived from petroleum products one could argue this approach is not that different from other electric generation plants burning carbon-based fuels. While that may be true, modern burning approaches do seem to produce fewer emissions then in the past. Using stored petroleum in the form of plastics can also reduce pumping demand. It does require transport, but so does every other form of energy in some way. Even wind or solar require manufacture and physical shipment for installation. In my opinion, nothing people do is truly neutral.

One interesting approach to trash incineration documented in the story is in Copenhagen, Denmark (my wife’s people) where they built a year-round skiing complex to hide the entire incinerator and the large pile of trash awaiting its demise. If we ever visit that town I will certainly be making some turns on the roof-top.

Here is a link to the edition:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/march-2020
​
Here is a link to the specific story on trash and the circular economy:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/how-a-circular-economy-could-save-the-world-feature

Here in Virginia winter has continued. We have had a series of snow and icy rain storms moving through Stafford, and the forecast says there are more to come. Clearly Punxsutawney Phil got things right this year. Between storms it stays cold, and the ground stays alternatively frozen or muddy. It’s made outside yard chores a bit more challenging, but I’m managing to clear some wood-fall, seed some bad yard patches, and till up some garden spots. If you want things to blossom in their time, work is required early.

In our gospel work we know that too. It’s true that church work is about the harvest. Gospel work is also about preparing ground, sewing seeds, and feeding truth and the Spirit for those who will follow to the harvest. Others have done some of that work for our harvest. We do similarly for others who later harvest. I’m reminded of how the Mormon pioneers approached the westward migration from Illinois to Utah. Along the path they planted grain fields. These were fields they would never actually harvest and eat from themselves. They planted those fields for the waves that would follow them on the same trail.

If you’ve ever been through western Nebraska and looked at the various trails west you would see how God’s wisdom was at work. One year while traveling from our home in Lincoln, Nebraska where we lived at the time to visit family in Utah, we decided to travel along the pioneer route (now known mostly as Route 2). At one point we stopped in Scottsbluff and went to the top to look over the expansive valley divided by the North Platte River that flows from west to east. There’s an observation point on top the bluff with all sorts of information. As it turns out the Oregon Trail passes through the same place. Oregon-bound migrants traveled on the south side of the river. Church members traveled on the north side. I found that curious as eventually those bound for Oregon would cross the river and head northwest. Those bound for the Salt Lake Valley would follow the river to the west-southwest. That means at some point along the way the trails crossed each other. In either case, by traveling on the north side church pioneers were able to plant their storehouse fields for those to follow without the harvest being taken by other travelers who might not have understood their purpose.

In our studies of the Doctrine and Covenants this year, my wife and I discussed some ideas of predestination and foreordination as shown through the story of the lost 116 pages of translation from the book of Lehi within The Book of Mormon. Nearly two thousand years before Joseph Smith received the plates from Moroni, Heavenly Father inspired Mormon to include the small plates of Nephi in his condensed version of the Nephite history. A thousand years earlier still He inspired Nephi to keep two sets of plates with similar information, but with a different focus. Those two small decisions allowed God to inspire Joseph Smith to publish The Book of Mormon while thwarting the evil intent of whoever stole the 116 pages of manuscript from him.

Were those with the evil intent of changing the words on the manuscript predestined to harbor those thoughts and attempt to discredit the prophet? If not then Heavenly Father might not have needed to inspire both Nephi and later Mormon about the small plates. Yet, all have agency. If it were not so we could easily fall prey to the idea that everything we do is preset and we have no agency. Some argue in favor of predestination to excuse poor behavior as if they have no choice. Many scientists and philosophers argue this point about whether or not we actually have agency, not from a religious perspective, but relying on logic. Some combination of genetics, chemistry, and circumstance cause our actions, they say.

Yet the gospel teaches that we do have agency, and are accountable at some level for what we do, say and think. I argue the foreknowledge of God does not preclude our agency. We are certainly influenced by genetics, chemistry, and circumstance. Influence is not a determinant, no matter how much the reasoning of science and philosophy says so.

One of the blessings of this life is the ability to develop faith. That only comes because Heavenly Father wisely removed memory of our pre-earth life. What we call a veil of forgetfulness also helps answer the question of the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and our agency as opposed to predestination. He may know all things, but thanks to the veil, we don’t. We are influenced by our own strengths, limitations and circumstance. We all are responsible within the varying levels of light we have received in our life. Ultimately Christ knows the level of our culpability and repentance, and He will be our judge. The experience of it all is a learning and growth opportunity for us. The knowledge we do not yet possess, that He does, makes our choices an act of agency, not mechanical predestination. In the end we will all agree his judgement is both just and merciful.

Just as the pioneers knew the blessing their field planting would be to those who followed, God knew the small plates would bless those to follow. The pioneer planters and reapers both had the choice to plant or reap, but those who reaped only had the choice because of those who chose to sew. Oregon-bound migrants did not sew, and none behind them were blessed. This all sounds a lot like the work of bringing souls to Christ.
​

Jonas, Hans. 2009. "Technology and Responsibility." In Readings in thye Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 173-184. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Hans Jonas looks closely in this article at how technological change drifts inherently toward a Utopian set of actions. Utopian could be thought of in the sense that people effect change to make things ‘better’. One has to ask - what does better mean? Jonas specifically asks - what force (or insight, or value-knowledge) represents the future in the present? How one views a future that ‘ought to be’ reflects one’s technological decisions today.
​
Like others who examine ‘modern technology’, Hans Jonas makes the case that the pace and potential lasting effects (positive or negative) have outstripped our ability to adjust ethical wisdom. Former technological change was slow enough that we could examine potential outcomes through an ethical lens, and that ethical lens could be adjusted as societies gained technological knowledge. The knowledge we lack about new ethics is more urgently needed, he suggests, but wisdom is not gained urgently. The ethic of thou shalt not kill only exists because of our capacity to kill. Our capacity now has global implications both for humanity and for nature, though one can also argue that these are not independent of each other. Jonas notes how our capacity to bring about irreversible effects has likewise grown.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.