Beach Haven

​I embrace new tech. That said, I think too often we can be tempted to dump ‘better’ legacy tech in favor of the latest and greatest. We are tempted to move to new tech because it’s new.  The old curmudgeon in me has made me more skeptical of shiny things or change for change’s sake. It seems I’m not alone. IEEE’s Gwendolyn Rak recently interviewed Rachel Plotnick who has been considering how buttons once replaced by touch screens are making a comeback.

Here’s the link to the full interview:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/touchscreens

“One of the biggest observations I made was that a lot of fears and fantasies around pushing buttons were the same 100 years ago as they are today. I expected to see this society that wildly transformed and used buttons in such a different way, but I saw these persistent anxieties over time about control and who gets to push the button, and also these pleasures around button pushing that we can use for advertising and to make technology simpler. That pendulum swing between fantasy and fear, pleasure and panic, and how those themes persisted over more than a century was what really interested me. I liked seeing the connections between the past and the present.”

Plotnik notes how touch screens are more visual than tactile. This can make user interfaces difficult for visually impaired. Button are purely tactile.

“If you look at gamers playing video games, they want to push a lot of buttons on those controls. And if you look at DJs and digital musicians, they have endless amounts of buttons and joysticks and dials to make music. There seems to be this kind of richness of the tactile experience that’s afforded by pushing buttons. They’re not perfect for every situation, but I think increasingly, we’re realizing the merit that the interface offers.”

Personally, I tend to be agnostic when it comes to human interface with machines, specifically my human interfaces. However, I have long worried about the risk of losing a screen causing a total loss of the device it controls. I also don’t like distractions while driving. Looking at a touch screen on a phone has caused way more accidents than the half second it takes to find the volume or tuning knob on a car dashboard. Once you touch an actual button there is no longer need to look at it while using it.

“I like the idea that people who are in the humanities studying these things from a long-term perspective can also speak to engineers trying to build these devices.” That is, if engineering departments take user-experience feedback into account. There are plenty of designers out there who feel they ‘know better’ than the people who receive the devices and software they are cranking out. I would argue that sometimes there is more in the field of design about keeping up with the Jones’ than listening to consumers.
​
For a number of years, I attended the Washington DC auto show. I did this not to look at the cars, but to check out the ‘infotainment’ systems (also known as head units) in the dashboards. In my role at NPR back then I was interested in how our over-the-air audio and metadata was being displayed in the menu system of each car. The trend setters were definitely de-buttanizing back then. I’m happy to hear in this interview that the opposite may be happening now. Maybe it’s ok that I held onto that large stereo system in our family room. As the saying goes, ‘everything old is new again’.

I jog some days. When I do, generally I have something playing in my ears. This morning, among other things, I listened to one of my regular podcasts. It’s called Nature Podcast and is published by the scientific journal called Nature. This particular episode is titled Audio long read: So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it? The article was written by Max Kozlov and read by the podcast host Benjamin Thompson. What an interesting concept. Most journals, including Nature, are looking for scientific studies with some sort of positive correlation outcome. Something that has a new or novel conclusion. However, experience teaches that most scientific efforts result in a negative correlation, or null outcome, just like any other human endeavor. I’m reminded of how many failures the Edison company had coming up with a working filament for the lightbulb before finally getting one that worked. We now tell ourselves this famous story, but until there was a working light bulb, nobody had any interest in telling the story of all the other versions that didn’t work. Had they never gotten it write would there be any interest in the failure and likely death of the company? Even with success, are there articles that review each failure and speak to why they failed? I believe not. It seems like we just lump all the filament failures into a number to show how many times the experimenters in Edison’s employ failed as a tail about persistence paying off.

Kozlov points out, among other things, how journals are in the business of attracting readers. The article notes how there are some sites in cyber space where these negative results are published, but with few submissions and little readership. As I listened to the long read, I was reminded of several other famous arguments made in the past. For example, Robert Merton famously wrote on scientific norms in an attempt to explain what motivates scientists. Many have since argued that Mertonian norms depict an optimistic list and suggest counter norms that seem more realistic to the authors. One could make the argument that any set of norms ascribed are a function of the subjective preferences of the list constructor.

Another argument that came to my mind was that of the 'Matthew effect', an idea also coined by Robert Merton. This assertion touts that those who get published gain some sort of credibility which then makes their future findings more likely to be published. The idea is from the biblical book of Matthew when the statement in one of the parables asserts to him who have shall be given more, and to him who has not shall be taken away even that which he has. Now, of course, these New Testament ideas were not about scientific credibility, nonetheless Merton makes hay from the idea. Taking it a step further, Margaret Rossiter added a feminist perspective asserting that women in this predicament are even less likely to get published or recognized for their scientific research, dubbing her argument the 'Matilda effect'.

The Nature article shares several unintended consequences of this propensity to only publish positive findings and ignore null outcomes. In the environment of ‘publish or perish’ people who have null research outcomes are likely to drop efforts and not document them. There is a reinforcing relationship between readership levels and publication levels of negative findings. Also, there are likely missed opportunities in that some researchers might find inspiration in null findings to move the research in a different direction. These avenues could be missed if they don’t hear about the research. When such findings are not shared, others may also waste time by conducting the same failed research unawares. As with Nature, it seems to me there ought to be some way to encourage publication and consumption of null-finding research. 

As Christmas quickly approaches, I hope each of you is also able to enjoy the spirit of the season. It’s the time of year we remember the birth of Jesus Christ. I remember my experience as a missionary at Christmas in Spain. Though it’s been more than 40 years ago, the memories are clear. It was both trying being away from family, and wonderful watching the gospel at work in the lives of people. I remember similar times away from home in the Navy, or for work, but nothing matches my time serving God.

I’ve been thinking about the talk Pres. Russell M. Nelson shared in 2022 titled ‘What is Truth?’. This topic has been close to my heart for a long time. It’s what drives me to seek wisdom, ‘even by study and by faith’. My PhD studies focus a lot on the intersection of facts, perspective, and truth.

About five years ago I noticed a bump on my forehead. It grew slowly, but noticeably. After nearly a year I had a doctor take a look. It was clear that it was under the skin and attached to my skull. As the doctor looked it over, he called my bump a lesion. He ordered up an ultrasound followed by an MRI. After the ultrasound, the bump/lesion name changed again to an occlusion. An ultrasound essentially looks at one side of the occlusion. That was the incentive for the MRI. After the MRI, the name changed again to an osteoma. It was described to me by the doctor in another way. He called it a benign bone tumor. The nature of the thing on my head never changed, but the technical tools used to look at it, and the names those tools inspired changed. So too did my level of stress over what it might mean for my future health. In the end, there is no health risk. Its growth stopped. If I ever want to have it go away, they can cut open my forehead and grind the bone. Sounds gross, and it’s not all that noticeable as it is. In fact, if I don’t mention it people generally don’t even notice. However, if I point it out, a person can’t help but notice.

This all seems analogous to truth to me. Truth does not change. It simply is, regardless what we call it, what we use to discover it, or how we feel about it. In my academic studies a large question is whether truth is 'discovered' or 'manufactured'. In the gospel sense, we seek truth through study and faith. For me, faith means doing. We can certainly understand some things intellectually. I assume you have met people who are ‘convinced’ of gospel truths, yet fail to commit. That’s because they are not willing to exercise faith by acting on invitations. What one believes is not the same as truth necessarily. It’s our individual responsibility to seek. Just like my bump, people often don’t notice the gospel until someone points it out to them. Then they can’t ignore it. They are forced to accept or reject. They can’t not consider it once they hear the word. That’s probably true of any idea, whether it be true or false, but gospel truth is only confirmed through BOTH study AND taking faith-based action.
​

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.

Winner, Langdon. 1993. "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." Science, Technology, & Human Values (Sage Publications, Inc.) 18 (3): 362-378.

Empty? Full? Something in Between?

In this article, Langdon Winner champions the need to look more closely at technical artifacts, the varieties of technical knowledge, and social actors. He views these research focus areas as black boxes much as Bruno Latour describes the concept in actor-network theory (ANT). He notes how constructivism also helps us consider these as well as the “interpretive flexibility of technical artifacts” (p. 366). Winner describes this sort of constructivist research as a narrow understanding of society in terms of ‘environment’ or ‘context’ that influences technology choices made. As helpful as this approach is, Winner argues that the narrowness of this perspective disregards important questions.

For Winner, the constructivist approach is a backward looking perspective with focus on technological origin and adoption. While constructivists note how context influences technology choice, it’s proponents often leave out social consequences that result once a technical choice is made. Constructivism tends to adhere to Latour’s concept of networks. By considering only those identified as actors who directly influence a given technology, groups considered ‘irrelevant’ are simply left out. ANT in particular notes dynamics of immediate needs, interests, problems, and solutions. While perhaps partially fulfilling some or all of those societal concerns, Winner notes the same technology often erodes community such as modern communications that can encourage human isolation.
​
By concentrating current and past interaction of technology and society, Winner points out, constructivism is essentially ignoring judgement (political, moral) of social use of artifacts. Temporally, he says, this is looking only at the present and the past with no thought toward potential futures. For Winner, this is a partial view that leaves empty the ‘black box’ constructivists claim to be opening up for examination. Couldn’t one argue instead that such an approach is not looking at an empty box, but perhaps conducting a partial inspection of the contents?

Marcuse, Herbert. 2009. "The New Forms of Control." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 34-42. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This article was shared in the aggregate referenced book, but is really the first chapter of a book written by Harbert Marcuse titled One-Dimensional Man. In the Marcuse reading The New Forms of Control, he argues, among other things, that use of mass media is one technological mechanism intended to align inner-dimension personal needs with outer-dimension societal (repressive) needs. The higher the personal level of indoctrination, the more the standards of priority align. Marcuse uses this idea of a societal need to indoctrinate as an implication of the two-dimensional person. ‘Society’ uses technology such as mass media to bring individual needs toward a goal of mimesis. When that societal goal is reached, the individual is now really one-dimensional. There is no longer any difference between personal or societal needs as expressed through technology adoption.

Marcuse wrote this in 1964. Mass media then was quite different from today. Television and radio broadcast channels, as well as newspapers and magazines, were essentially the communication technologies of the day. Marcuse focuses primarily on broadcast media, rightfully for the time in that these were the primary information and entertainment sources of most people, at least in many western cultures. Since then media have fractionalized considerably. One can make the argument that narrowcast two-way media is having the opposite effect as Marcuse depicts. As people have ever more choices, and increasing control over the sources they rely on for information, the number of ‘societies’ available through technical means has grown. Membership in any one society or culture has decreased. Many people even find themselves in multiple cultures simultaneously. Mistrust grows by way of technology in those cultures (societies) to which one chooses not to belong. Maybe this still makes each person one-dimensional as Marcuse implies. Does it also mean each ever-more-specialized society now adjusts its needs to match individuals in order to have enough ‘membership’ in order to exist? Is it the society that becomes more one-dimensional?

The attachment is of the specific reference above, but is the entire work. This article only reviews chapter 1. 

​ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS: EXPLORING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP
By Andreas Ziegler and Jazmin Seijas Nogareda
IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, Second Quarter, June 2013, p. 72-86
 
The authors seek to explore causal effects of adoption of environmental management systems (EMS), voluntary environmental programs (VEP), and a specific VEP known as Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), specifically asking if such measures could be ‘reversely affected’ by environmental product or process innovation. An empirical literature review is also referenced. Ultimately the data seems to indicate some ambiguity to the question.
 
The paper offers a series of hypotheses related to the main question, then shows data collected through ‘econometric analysis’ of primarily German companies with ISO-14001 certification. The data is examined in order to understand simple and complex correlations, if any, encourage adoption of EMS and VEP if proven advantageous. Those most interested in such a question would include strategic planners at manufacturing companies, and regulatory bodies who may see motivation to encourage adoption though tax incentives.
 
The paper offers insights from literature review and specific data. The number of companies in the survey constitutes a large subset of the German economy. The authors themselves, however, note how the relationships among their chosen variables are complex, and limiting the variables further could mask actual causation. The authors are asking the right questions even if they cannot definitively point to specific causal relationships. From the perspective a scholar in the field of Science, Technology and Society (STS), the ideas directly relate to sociological interaction of policy (public and private), economic factorial influence on technological development, and a perceived need for scientific investigation into the specifics of environmental impact of process and policy implementation. 

For the mid-term this semester we selected two topics from among six. I wrote these in reverse order. The first to appear was actually the second I wrote, and was rushed in the process. I think it shows. 

Final paper from class on History of Science at VT. Try to stay awake.
​

​An entertaining video I watched while learning about the topic was from Terry Jones called The Story of 1. It's hilarious in a very Monty Python sort of way, but full of good mathematical and historical ideas. 

Here's the video:
​

The idea of progress as linked with the most recent version of the idea of technology implies change. It also implies that the change is supportive of the goals or preferences of whoever is designating the change as progress. In Modernity and Technology by Thomas J. Misa, the author argues that as some see modernity and technological advancement as progress, other philosophers see these ideas linked as a negative. Among his proposals the author states “Technology may be the truly distinctive feature of modernity” as proposal 2. Misa posits that those who argue for technological determinism of social norms (modernists), and those who prefer a focus on societal change independent of technology (post-modernists) are both thinking too macro. He argues, “To constructively confront technology and modernity, we must look more closely at individual technologies and inquire more carefully into social and cultural processes.”

As Misa offers “proposals” in his article, likewise Melvin Kranzberg offers “laws” in his article Technology and History: “Kranzberg’s Laws”. His sixth law states, “Technology is a very human activity – and so is the history of technology.” In this section of the article Kranzberg argues “man the thinker” is also simultaneously “man the maker.” In fact, he is saying that what man the thinker is thinking about is what to make and how to make it. Like Misa, he questions the technological imperative. Although we often shape our lives around technology such as the clock or the automobile, “this does not necessarily mean that the ‘technological imperative’… necessarily directs all our thoughts and actions.”

As Misa states that the concepts around technology should look more at the specifics, the micro instead of the macro, Kranzberg actually gives some specific examples. In speaking of “technical devices that would make life simpler or easier for us but which our social values and human sensibilities simply reject”, he shares how we, in America at least, do not accept the use of communal kitchens. “Our adherence to the concept of the home has made that technical solution unworkable,” he adds. Where some might take advantage of the shared benefit of a communal kitchen, including better equipment with pooled resources and less work in cleaning and maintaining through shared effort, American culture does not see the technical advantage as a form of progress.

​The Misa writing helps to see some linkages between various aspects of technology that are not so obvious. For example, under his proposal 4 comparing modernism and postmodernism he speaks to architecture as a technology. Modernists, he states, follow the idea that less is more, while postmodernists would argue less is bore. Another example of a strength is linking the concepts of reason and freedom. He shares both arguments of freedom through reason, and concern that it can lead to domination by reason, hence the opposite idea that reason usurps freedom. Similar examples through the work point to both the strength and weakness of the writing. Helping present multiple sides of the questions is helpful to arriving at a better understanding of the questions, but the author generally does not take a side. He frames the questions and shares the answers of others that disagree. He also generally only shares two sides to each of the posed questions. I am sure there are many more than two sides that could be understood.

An important part of the study of history is to seek out primary sources about the research topic in question. Below is an analysis of three primary sources that will inform my final semester research project. Each source is evaluated on a form, then there is a write up discussing the story the sources tell. The format is dictated by the course professor, but is a good one for students of history to use with the intention of writing on a research topic. Even if one does not intend to write on a topic, the initial form document is helpful for at least focusing evaluative thought. The reason this document is called "Part 2" is because the initial part of the assignment was to email a one paragraph explanation to the professor along with links to the sources so she could offer any feedback. Enjoy.

While at church a few weeks ago I listened to the sacrament talks. They were about freedom and agency. It so happens that I have also been reading some sociological theory. In particular I read some writings of Herbert Marcuse. He argues society is ‘higher’ with more freedom, but his notion of freedom is troubling. He says choice between limited options (socially constructed options) is really not freedom. He also says evidence of ‘higher’ culture is when more diverse forms of sexuality are public, and publicly accepted.

It seems to me like Satan always argues down this path. He cries ‘No boundaries’ and suggests when boundaries are in place they are motivated by power (slave/master) relationships. Yet as I have written in the past, good and evil can be best understood (maybe only understood) by comparison with each other. To understand right from wrong a boundary is necessary.

Book of Mormon apostates inevitably refer to the gospel as a ‘foolish tradition’ or a tool for leaders to exercise power over others (see Alma 30 for example). Unfortunately there have been examples of power hungry religious and civic leaders throughout history willing to compromise ethics, but painting all leaders with this sort of brush is disingenuous at best. It’s another way Satan fights dirty. He inspires such action by some leaders then points to it as an excuse for other, just as bad, behavior.

One of the arguments Marcuse uses is that total freedom to choose any option is a must. If options are somehow limited than one is not really free to choose, only to choose from limited options filtered, or narrowed, by someone with power. The options, goes his position, are intended to control behavior to keep or increase power for those in charge of the options. For example capitalists narrow options to increase profits under the guise of efficiency. Yet if there were an infinite number of purchasing options from any company then the business of providing a commodity is not sustainable. The result would likely be business collapse causing even the limited number of options to be lost. A friend of mine recently read a paper about ketchup. Some stores offered a large number of ketchup options assuming it would cause an increase in ketchup purchases. Instead the study found overall purchases decreased. Once the ketchup options were limited sales increased. The understanding was lowering options helped people to make selections.

​Religion, Marcuse argues, inhibits sexual choice in order to repress people through feelings of guilt. I think straying from Heavenly Father’s description of the law of chastity is less about who or how people love, and more about the effect on family and, by extension, society.