#nathan heyn

[bloggingdukes-blog]

Innovation and Disaster

Innovation does not always cause disaster. However, when a new, potentially unstable technology is introduced or produced, there is always the possibility of disaster. For example, when a new type of engine fuel was experimented on in chapter three of Collins and Pinch’s “The Golem at Large,” although there was good data for the plane fuel, the plane ultimately exploded. In the example given in chapter two of the same book, the Challenger rocket, another experimental technology, also failed in the face of innovation. When the rocket exploded, several astronauts and a teacher died. However, many innovations do not ultimately result in disaster. This fact can be seen through the numerous successful rocket launches and plane flights. Whenever there are variables in a plan, even if there is only a one percent chance of failure, failure can still occur and result in death or other disastrous consequences.

Some types of innovation, however, are much less likely to cause a disaster. For example, during the creation of the cold fusion generator described in chapter 3 of “The Golem” by Collins and Pinch, there does not appear to be any risk of disaster resulting directly from the innovation described in the book. However, this particular innovation does appear to be a scam, as the cold fusion experiment could not be replicated. Although the innovation was probably a hoax, the principal remains that innovation does not have to cause disaster. If the innovation has no inherent risk, then it is likely that it will not directly cause disaster. However, it is possible that if cold fusion were to take off, there could be other risks associated with the cheap power it could produce along with social changes and other unforeseen consequences. These types of long-term risks are not disastrous in the same way as a fiery explosion however. Therefore, it can be said that innovation does not always cause disaster, but many innovations have risks associated with them.

[bloggingdukes-blog]

What Works

In Collins’ article “Replicating the TEA-Laser” he discusses what he calls “tacit knowledge” and its effect on scientific experimentation. Collins describes tacit knowledge as intrinsic and something that is difficult to impart to others. Collins gives riding a bike as a type off tacit knowledge. In the paper, the primary example that Collins uses is that of the construction of a TEA (Transversely Excited Atmospheric) laser. This laser uses gas to produce a powerful, concentrated beam of light. Collins goes into detail about how a particular scientist, Bob Harrison, went about constructing a laser. During the laser construction process, Harrison encountered some problems and was forced to troubleshoot some of the problems. In the process of troubleshooting, Harrison encountered some problems such as the flatness of glass tubes in the laser design, and marked these differences as important, while disregarding other aspects of the laser design such as the length of certain wires. However, through continued experimentation, Harrison discovered that the wires were significant while the tubes were not. When working on constructing a second laser, Harrison used his tacit knowledge of laser building to disregard the flatness of the glass tubes while focusing more on the length of the wires. He might not have been able to explain why he operated the way he did when constructing his second laser, all he knew is what worked and what didn’t. Tacit knowledge is a common part of scientific research and if the experimenter is forced to explain every step they take, they are not always able to. This observation comes from my personal experience working in a Biotech wet lab. My supervisor often informs me that aspects of my procedure are unimportant, while things that I overlooked may be crucial. My supervisor is often able to give an explanation for why we do certain things, but often the knowledge comes from experience of what works and what doesn't.

[bloggingdukes-blog]

Opposing Views on Technologies Reconciled

In his article “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Winner proposes two perspectives on technology. Winner does not say that these perspectives are mutually exclusive. One perspective is that the artifacts, which is his term for various technologies, give rise to political norms. The other perspective is contrary and states that artifacts are the result of political norms. By political norms, Winner means social practices as well. In another article, “Amish Technology” by Wetmore, the Amish’s views on technology are examined. Wetmore does not make arguments in his report, but simply describes the Amish way of life and their unique approach to technology. Eventually it is revealed in the article that the Amish believe that technology has the potential to deeply impact their social and political norms.

The Amish’s perspective on technology differs for both of Winner’s proposals, but validate both of the proposals. The Amish are deeply aware that the introduction of new technologies into their society could create new social norms, deeply disrupting their way of life. However, the Amish are less opposed to the introduction of new technologies based on existing social norms. For example, because the Amish wish to remain economically viable, certain technologies such as diesel engines and phones have been carefully permitted in many Amish communities. Because these technologies are representative of values already held in the Amish community, they are largely accepted, and are not believed to have a large, negative impact on Amish life. The Amish’s approach to technology validates Winner’s opinion that the two technological perspectives do not exclude each other.

Winner’s arguments and Wetmore’s examination are very compatible when viewed from the perspectives above. Technologies seem to be both the result of social norms, and the cause of them. These conditions vary for different technologies, communities, and applications. The Amish seem to be aware of both, and are only willing to adopt technologies that are in line with their pre-established values.

[bloggingdukes-blog]

The Circular Proof of the Theory of Relativity

Einstein’s theory of relativity sent shockwaves through the scientific community of physics. Einstein’s theories seemed sound to many scientists, which could have been the first problem in the way that the experiments to test Einstein’s theory were conducted. Instead of approaching the theory as something with no experimental evidence, the scientists attempted to prove the theory. In other words, the scientists had already decided that the theory of relativity was accurate before testing it. In “The Golem” two tests are described. The first seemed to prove Einstein’s idea that light moved at the same speed in every direction. The second seemed to prove that light could be bent by large gravitational fields. However, because the scientists conducting the experiments were operating under the assumption that that theory were true, the results of the experiments ended up being circular. The relationship can be seen in Figure 1.

For example, when testing the way that light was bent by gravitational fields, not only were the experiments poorly and inaccurately conducted, when choosing which results to keep, the scientists chose the results to keep based on the expected results as predicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity. When determining that light moved at the same speed no matter how fast the observer was moving, when results surfaced that seemed to disprove this theory, they were largely discredited by the scientific community. The results were rejected even though it appeared that the results generated by the contradictory experiment were more accurate than the other results. This quote from “The Golem” summarizes the inappropriateness of experiments conducted in this manner: “The picture of a quasi-logical deduction of a prediction followed by a straightforward observational test is simply wrong. What we have seen are the theoretical and experimental contributions to a cultural change, a change which was just as much a license for observing the world in a certain way as a consequence of those observations.” This quote seems to say that this type of “experimentation” where the results being tested are used as proof for the experiment has become acceptable in the scientific community, even when it could possibly generate skewed results.

[bloggingdukes-blog]

"Discovery" Reblog

In his article “Learning to See,” Samuel Scudder remarks on the differences between observing something, and “seeing” it. While learning to study insects under the instruction of Luis Agassiz, Scudder was instructed to study a fish. Scudder remarks that he was initially repulsed by the fish, and observed everything about the fish in ten minutes. He mostly noticed that the fish was slimy, stinky, and gross. However, Agassiz instructed Scudder to look at the fish for hours, and then days, only using his eyes and hands. After a day alone with the fish, Scudder began looking more closely at the fish. By looking more closely, Scudder observed many more things about the fish. He noticed its scales, gills, teeth, lips, eyes, and fins. Scudder began to go beyond a cursory glance at the fish, and the fish began to come into focus. However, Agassiz was still not satisfied with these observations and instructed Scudder to spend more time with the fish. Scudder also drew the fish, internalizing its structure and ingraining the fish’s image in his mind. In attempting to create an accurate representation of the fish, Scudder forced himself to form an even more accurate representation of his subject of study. Eventually, scudder comes to love the fish, and treats it as an old friend. Scudder’s internalization and representation of the fish demonstrate an example of Robert Hudson’s definition of discovery set forth in Hudson’s paper “Discoveries, When and By Whom?” Scudder was able to provide a base description of the object, he was able to demonstrate these features through the use of a drawing, he found characteristics of the fish that were novel to himself, and the object that he described was the object that he described. What Agassiz wanted Scudder to do, was not just see the fish, but discover the fish for himself. This ability to “discover” everyday objects allowed Scudder to go on and have an outstanding career in his field.

[bloggingdukes-blog]

Blog 2 Choice B

The investigation conducted concerning the sexually transmitted disease that would eventually become known as AIDS was full of doubt and uncertainty. As portrayed in the movie “And the Band Played On,” the scientists at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) were underfunded and unsure to the causes of the disease. AIDS appeared in the USA as bizarre infections without any obvious cause. The CDC was faced with a disease that was killing hundreds of people and the disease did not have a name or a known cause. Throughout the movie, the scientists struggled with the questions: “What do we think, what do we know, and what can we prove?” The disease had originally appeared in the homosexual community and seemed to be spreading through sexual contact. At this point, the researchers “thought” they knew something about the spreading of the disease. Through power of elimination, along with further testing, the researchers eventually came to the conclusion that the disease was caused by an infectious agent that transmitted through the blood, including sexual contact. Having ruled out all other possibilities, the scientists “knew” some things about the disease. However, although the scientists had correctly deduced the method of transferal, the researchers could not take action against the disease because they had no hard science to back up their claims. Without hard evidence, any advisories issued by the CDC could be disregarded by at-risk people, or worse, the conjectures that the advisories were based on could be proven to be incorrect. The scientists were forced to let more people die while research was conducted at the CDC. Eventually through collaboration with the French, the cause of the disease was found to be a retrovirus that caused the disease AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). Finally, after having proof to back up their claims, a test was developed and research began on finding a cure for AIDS.

[bloggingdukes-blog]

What is science?

In our current era, science and technology have become almost the same thing. Advancements in technology promote further scientific discovery, while scientific study promotes advancements in technology. I grew up with science. My mother was involved with early genetic research on fruit fly eye color. She left her job when she had me, but throughout my early years she encouraged me to love science, especially biology. I have taken many biology courses throughout my schooling career and decided to concentrate in biotechnology within the ISAT program at JMU. The impact that science in general has had on my daily life is undeniable. I am currently sitting in front of a computer, enjoying an air-conditioned environment, and wearing clothes that were produced in a factory. All of these things could not have existed without scientific and technological research and discovery. Science has impacted my family and my community in similar ways. Science has given us the ability to stay connected over long distances, both through advancements in telecommunications as well as advances in transportation. The current generation is the first generation in human history to have grown up surrounded by the levels of technology and constant scientific advancement that we possess today. Unlike previous generations, the current generation has grown up with new and unknown technology such as GM foods, internet, and reliable cell service. Constant exposure to this new technology will undoubtedly shape the current, as well as future generations. The United States in particular is subject to the extreme amount of scientific and technological immersion of this generation. The consumerist tendencies often seen in the US combine with new technology and science and drives the production and discovery of even more powerful advancements. Future generations may experience even more revolutionary technologies, further changing the way that they live. With the rate that current scientific and technological studies are progressing, the future could hold new horrors or successes.