Beach Haven

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. 

Bibliography
​Bhattacharjee, Y. (2020, January). A World of Pain. National Geographic.

Reading a deep-dive article about pain studies in the January 2020 issue of National Geographic, I noticed two instances describing how virtual reality (VR) was used to counteract pain successfully.

In the first, a patient is awake during surgery. A picture shows the person on a gurney with a surgeon hovered over him. Metal probes are sticking out of the man’s midsection. His face is covered with a VR headset. The note next to the picture describes how the patient plays a VR game called SnowWorld. The note further explains that during the procedure “he had one stabilizing pin removed from his pelvis” (Bhattacharjee, 2020, p. 49) with and another without the VR. The study “suggests VR could decrease the need for general anesthesia, reducing risk and cost”. 

In the other example, a chronic pain sufferer “watches a mesmerizing motion of jellyfish on a virtual reality headset” (Bhattacharjee, 2020, p. 61). This approach was said to help regulate “body responses to pain, improving mood, and reducing anxiety”.

VR displays at different media conferences I’ve attended for decades now, have been all about transporting a user into other worlds, be they natural like viewing ocean creatures or man-made like a video game. That’s been the base intent all along. I might argue it is likely that VR creators did not consider the pain-reduction potential of this particular technology. Mood modification is a part of the approach of most media. For example, music can pump up or relax the listener. Movies can evoke fear, excitement, sadness, or romance. Media as a form of escapism has a long history, but escaping pain might be a new take on the specific tech of VR.

Light, Andrew. 2009. "Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: A Pragmatic Perspective." Chap. 30 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 452-467. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

What is Included in Philosophy?

In his article, Andrew Light focuses on the philosophical niche of environmentalism. His main argument is that philosophy should take a role informing activists, policy makers, and the public at large on ecological issues. “If we talk only to each other about value theory, we have failed…” (p. 453). To support this strong statement, Light argues from the specific perspective of ecology. Can such a normative pronouncement be generalized to other niche areas of philosophy, or even to philosophy in general?

In order to plead support for philosophical activism, Andrew Light examines the specific controversy of ecological restoration. The controversy is a normative should question. Should humanity invest in projects intended to restore ecosystems that have been changed through human activity? He examines positions by philosophers such as Robert Elliot and Eric Katz who are against any restorative attempts on several grounds; we have neither obligation nor ability, and any attempts yield artifacts not nature.

Light argues in favor of what he calls ‘benevolent restoration’ on a number of grounds. He notes how even an imperfect restoration can free nature to grow and replace itself where man starts the process. Without any effort by humans, nature often cannot replace itself in damaged areas except with maybe something completely different than what once was. He calls this catalyst approach ‘intermediate communication’. Light further points to how such attempts at restoration tend to restore a culture of nature, if not nature itself. This last point seems similar to Bruno Latour’s position that when a human actor and a technological actant join, it can result in something entirely different than either inter-actor would create on its own. Light calls this interaction “firsthand exposure… to the actual consequences of human domination of nature” (p. 464).
​

This line of reason by Light is persuasive to one who may already be inclined to support ecological issues, but doesn’t actually make the case of why philosophy should do more than contemplate. For example, is sharing philosophical perspective with activists, policy makers, and the public more akin to scientific communications than philosophy?

Here in Virginia the weather has been vacillating between too-cold-for-an-old-guy-like-me, and perfect-for-an-afternoon-jog-or-a-little-yard-work. Sometimes at night we get clear skies that make for perfect star-gazing so long as the wind isn’t blowing enough to make the crisp night air feel more like bone-chills. This is the time of year when Mother Nature can’t seem to make up her mind. They say it’s all about the jet stream. Recently my wife and I were able to make the trek over to Solomon’s Island were we keep our little sailboat. We needed to change out two mooring lines that were excessively chafed. While we were there we did a few other maintenance requirements. It was nice to get a few hours on the water, even if we were just tied up to the dock.

In March I filled a church assignment by speaking in the young single adult (YSA) congregation. It was a nice change of pace for me. I’ve worked with youth for so many years. We always tell the youth that they would be making the most important decisions of their lives in just a few years. For the YSA members, they are making those decisions now. Decisions about missionary service, career paths, marriage, and whether they will choose to hold onto the light they have gained up to this point, or allow the ‘wisdom of man’ to sway them.

This question of whose wisdom we should aspire is an important one to me. I’ve had many thoughts and experiences over decades that have brought clarity around issues of ‘fact’ and issues of ‘truth’. I find it interesting that the current academic field of study I’m pursuing puts a great deal of focus on these concepts as to their forms, or even their existence. There are so many ways to think about the arguments. There is no way to really do these ideas justice in such a short format as this blog post. I find it so interesting that schools or disciplines in science and engineering claim solidity in either or both ideas (facts and truth), yet ultimately reach so many differing conclusions that the variability of support for and against ‘established’ facts, and the supposed truth they lead to, are left suspect. This variability in itself puts in question why anyone would stand firmly behind conclusions that directly contradict truth revealed by way of the Spirit. Let me give you just a few examples of what I mean.

Scientific and engineering disciplines seek to define ‘truth’ in a very specific way. Its practitioners (I am among them by the way) will argue that it starts with data (facts). It really doesn’t though. It really starts with a question, followed by a hypothesis, then the design of an experiment, then the carrying out of that experiment, then an interpretation of the data the experiment produces, then a depiction of the interpretation. At every step of the way a human is making decisions about how to do something, as well as what to leave in, and what to leave out. We call this deciding what is relevant. The human is communicating all of this to other humans. Each human looks at the information and process along the way slightly differently. Eventually, by convention, experts generally agree on what the facts are. Assemble enough agreed upon facts and one has evidence. Assemble enough agreed upon evidence and one has proof. Assemble enough agreed upon proof and one has truth. Sadly, the road along this method is riddled with facts, evidence, proof and truths that with subsequent similar effort prove to be neither facts nor truth. I know what we immediately derive from this. That means such a method is self-correcting. Yes it is, so long as the later correction is closer to truth than the previous version. Since we don’t have absolute truth to compare the outcomes of our effort to, we can never really be absolutely sure with this method.

I use two tools to explain. These tools are really the same tool described from opposite perspectives. They both address variability. If you are a mathematical person, you might wonder where the magic wand of a ‘constant’ comes from. As a young student I was taught what constants were needed for a given formula to perform a specific calculation. Constants are used in all scientific fields. A constant is either an unchanging number, or a standard function that one inserts into a formula to reveal a hoped-for outcome. I always wondered what motivated the genius scientists to create such a powerful mystical tool that can make the formula (sort of) work every time. The answer as it turns out is that a constant is a trick. One takes the formula that is thought up to create or interpret data. Often the data has variability, meaning it does not form a perfect pattern of some kind (a line, a curve, etc.). If there is too much variability then the data (facts) don’t support a hypothesis. Run the numbers enough times, such as in use of a Monte-Carlo simulation, and the data might sort of fit the pattern one is looking for (meaning the data are statistically significant). How to make that better? Figure out a constant that can lower variability to something more acceptable. Like magic, the expected shape, though not perfectly adhered to within the data, gets closer than the non-constant-laden formula produces.

If science approaches variability by cleaning up data through use of a formulaic constant, engineering approaches it through setting limits of acceptability known collectively as ‘tolerance’. Engineers simply accept that there is no actual perfect answer, but there is a range of answers that work ‘good enough’ to complete a task at hand. The result is a requirement creation in the form of a measurement of some kind plus-or-minus some degree of imperfection. It might be a length, weight, pressure, temperature, etc. measurement with an allowable percentage of variation. In my world of communications networks we call this approach creating a ‘link budget’. Science adjusts a formula to better align data with what’s expected. Engineering leaves out anything that gets too far from what’s expected. Is that thing actually a meter long, or is it more-or-less a meter long? The second is always the best answer.

Where am I going with this? Truth cannot be a function of what we agree to. For me, truth is a discreet statistical sample. Something is or is not true. The same can be said for facts. What is not a discrete sample, but rather a continuum, is the validity of what one accepts as fact or truth when dependent purely on human logic and reasoning; this is the ‘wisdom of man’. The answer for me has been in coming to rely on the revelatory guidance of the Holy Ghost. One must put in the effort of reason and logic to understand truth claims, then seek direct confirmation from Heavenly Father who knows all truth and is eager to share with those willing to both ask and act. For me, this is the definition of faith. It’s not just believing blindly. Faith is purposeful action that leads one to truth. Faith is understanding that despite all we do on our own we can never really come to knowledge of truth through data and reason alone.
​

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.

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

​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. 

Below is a synthesis short writing given at the end of a class I took on Philosophy of Science and Technology: 

Argumentative Claim:

Truth exists, but our understanding of it is an approximation.

Justification:

Newton conjectured existence of the ‘all-pervading aether’ (Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 254). Hacking shows how for centuries many scientists held the existence of the substance. With this basic premise they were able to explain many phenomena, at least in part. The idea more or less gave up the ghost when Einstein’s relativity was generally adopted by the scientific community. That didn’t happen immediately. Interestingly, calculation such as those published by Maxwell were referenced by both Newtonians and Einstein. This points to Hacking’s idea that calculation acts as a bridge between speculation and experiment.

Then why did most scientists make the shift from Newton to Einstein? Thomas Kuhn would argue either could be justified as a paradigm suggesting relativity would eventually be supplanted by something newer, not necessarily truer. If one ascribes to Kuhn’s argument taken to extreme, then the existence of truth itself is in question. Kuhn might be accused of “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7, New Testament).

Describing skepticism, Baggini and Fosl point to a need for ‘criterion of truth’ (The Philosopher's Toolkit, 126). One could make the argument that such an approach makes truth relative to criteria. Who decides which criteria matter? Calculation and experimentation ultimately lead to a level of probability of truth.  Hacking argues experiments fill theoretical blanks (Representing and Intervening, 239). That only improves theoretical probability, what Nancy Cartwright calls an approximation of truth (Representing and Intervening, 218).
​

I would argue one must adopt one’s own criteria for truth. These criteria are what might be considered accepted basic principles. To maintain belief in a principle such as truth exists independent of man’s discovery or invention, a principle I personally hold, one must consider alternatives that introduce some level of doubt. Alternatives will have some logic, and likely some level of experimentation. To maintain confidence in the basic principle requires at least a rough understanding of the probabilistic comparison of the conflicting ideas, and a willingness to adjust if the probability of the alternate rises in comparison over time. Despite shifting probabilities, one must remember that either or both alternative principles may be wrong, and be comfortable living with some level of doubt.

This year my wife and I traveled to Utah to spend time with family for Christmas. It was fun opening presents, eating too much food, playing games, and getting in a ski day with our son Jacob. We also saw two movies, the next installments of Star Wars and Jumanji.

Before we left for Utah the wonderful missionaries serving in our congregation here in Virginia shared this year’s nativity video. This is a powerful tool to convey the Spirit. I was particularly peaked by the Spirit at the moment of His birth, again as the shepherds saw the angels, and one last time as one of the wise men first sees the star appearing in the sky. I shared the link to the video on my Facebook page. I hope it helped someone.

An interesting note, I have a particular interest in navigation. In the video the wise men use a specific tool to check their position relative to the north star. At first I erroneously thought they were using the device in reference to the new star. I didn’t recognize it so I consulted Google. The device is called a Kamal. In the video the Magi put one end of the chain in his mouth. He held up a rectangular card attached to the other end of the chain to gain a position. How it is used is explained on the website Online Star Register:

The Kamal was composed of a wood or horn parallelogram one inch by two inches long. Strings were inserted through the center. The string composed of knots at different points along its length. Each knot, called an isba, equaled one degree 36 minutes. The knots ranged from 1 to 16 isba. The navigator would put one of the knots between his teeth and hold the Kamal at arm’s length. When the upper and lower edges of the device became coincident with the pole star and the horizon, the navigator knew his latitude was correct. The latitude of different ports corresponded to the position of particular knots on the string.

One other point that came out as my wife and I discussed the Come, Follow Me topic in the car on the way to Utah. Although the star was a sign the Messiah was born and helped guide them to Jerusalem, it did not light directly over the manger in Bethlehem (contrary to popular depictions). The wise men had to seek out Harod’s scholars who in turn had to dig around through the records to find the name of the town. The video points out that their visit was much later, after Christ was more of a toddler than a baby. By that point they were no longer living in a barn. So the wise men first had to have studied over years to know the sign and to understand basic astronomy. Then they had to be diligent in watching for the sign. Then they had to be willing to follow the sign. Despite that, they still had to consult scripture to know of his location. Then once close they had to ask the townspeople to point to the specific house. Is that not unlike our efforts to seek Him as well?

One final note. This year was the first we celebrated Christmas without our mothers. They both passed away last year within three weeks of each other. As we were traveling home we noted how this year just didn’t feel like Christmas. Not all of our family could be there, but that is always true. However, of our parents, only her father is still with us. Despite the games, presents, family and all the rest, without our mothers it just wasn’t the same.
​

De-centering the ‘Big Picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science
By Adrew Cunningham and Perry Williams
 
In this article, the authors look at historical approaches to science. They divide scientific histories into two sorts, those that seek a macro story, and those that focus on more personal experience. The macro version of history attempts to paint broad patterns. Patterns and major milestones dominate the depictions. The micro version of history tends to focus on individual scientist experience and resultant breakthroughs.
 
The origins of modern science refers to the period of time in seventeenth century Europe commonly referred to as the scientific revolution. The authors note at the macro level historians in general consider areas of:

• Philosophical - particular method of inquiry to produce general causal laws - mathematical
• Moral - basic values of freedom and rationality, truth and goodness, social and material progress
• Universal human enterprise - human curiosity - new humanism - science as human civilization

 
In the area of modern origins of science focus is more about a plurality of ways to know the world. The is an expression of a transition from considering nature as created by God, to an attempt to understand natural processes.
 
When the authors speak to de-centering the big picture histories, they note how these histories are often confided to the last 250 years and are Europe and North-America-centric. As opposed to seeking only scientific process knowledge, Cunningham and Williams also stress other sorts of knowledge such as knowledge of fact, technical knowledge, relational knowledge and moral knowledge.
 
In terms of de-centering, the article does not go on to speak to other scientific, or knowledge centers geographically such as Asia, Africa or South America. The authors also don’t speak to traditional local forms of knowledge such as non-western approaches to medicine. Cunningham and Williams depict science as an invention, or perhaps they might have better stated it as a convention. If this is true, then why only focus on one conventional approach?

The Newest History: Science and Technology
By Melvin Kranzberg
May 1962
​
In this article, Melvin Kranzberg argues for a new approach to history through the lens of science and technology. Old history is about politics and the state. Democratizing history adds society (the people) to history. A few of his arguments in favor of a focus on science and technology in history include:

• History is incomplete without including science and Technology
• Regular citizens make decisions based on science and technology
• No single group has a monopoly
• Science and technology add a fun factor
• One can gain solace in human potential through science and technology when civilization seems to fall backwards
• Science and technology progress even if society doesn’t

Kranzberg points out that interest has been increasing in the topic. The Cold War drove increased focus on science and technology, and that focus also drove interest in the study of its history, processes, social influences, etc. He also notes interest I stories about scientists and their ideas, human use of technology, and how understanding the history helps make modern science and technology decisions more informed.
​
The original article was published in 1962. As it turns out much of his predictions have panned out in that there are whole disciplines related to science and technology that is academically concerned with history, philosophy, sociology and policy for example. Despite that, his point about using history to make better decisions about modern employment of science and technology may be overstated. Most college graduates today completing a degree in a STEM field have likely not taken any courses in any of the liberal arts areas that focus on STEM areas. Despite the fact that most “soft science” programs consider it important for “hard science” majors to have some understanding of such topics, perhaps the hard science program directors are not yet sold on the idea.

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:
​

​Sustainable Design: Beyond the Innovation-Driven Business Model
By Hartmut Esslinger
IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, Second Quarter, June 2013
 
This article considers what the role for design engineers might play in ‘greening’ industry. Although I’m not sure I buy all the dire predictions about how quickly things will get in the immediate, yet I’m also all for being wise stewards of our planet. I hear all the messaging about scientific prediction and am reminded that it is just that, prediction. Such predictions are based on modeling using available data, and making probabilistic assumptions.
 
That said, I’m with Esslinger on part of the approach he espouses. “Designers have a unique opportunity to drive the development of sustainable products by virtue of our role in the early stages of the product lifecycle process.” Esslinger assumes “some radical change” is required, but also advocates “evolving our industrial processes” by taking advantage of opportunities to “apply technologies, or products, or practices that are currently available, or can be easily adapted from existing models or practices.” The more evolutionary portion of his proposal seems more realistic. Radical change can easily bring unintended consequences, making some things better, and other things worse. 

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.

Bruno Latour and other proponents of Actor Network Theory (ANT) focus on interactions between and among actors (people) and actants (things) in a network intended to build knowledge. Emerging nodes and clusters, where interactivity is greatest, define where knowledge is extended. Thoughts of social context and varying goals in ANT are not considered important, or useful, in extending knowledge. Unfortunately, when difference is not examined some potential influences are missed, and knowledge is not extended everywhere, or as far as, it could.

In her article, Modernity's Misleading Dream: Latour, Sandra Harding points to a defined need within ANT to externalize social thought. She indicates that Latour does acknowledge a need to link the philosophies of science with political science to succeed with his three-step process translating power to the lab. This is true because political power is a source of influence that can help in growing the influence of the ‘important’ actors in the network, meaning scientists. Making the border between the laboratory and the world permeable enough to be able to extend the lab and incorporate the field-site is a critical step that requires some translation of political power.

Latour’s need for unity in purpose, a common world, blinds him to differences according to Harding. This matters in part because when there is a multiplicity of interests and beliefs, those interests spawn more criteria to help define success. Narrowing criteria may allow the definer of the criteria, the scientist, to claim success, while many others may see failure. This tension between definitions of success and failure risks future political support, or power, and ultimately weakens the scientific community, or at least the specific lab involved.

Barbara Allen’s example of the Holy Cross neighborhood in New Orleans post Hurricane Katrina is a stark example. She examines rebuilding efforts in her study Neighborhood as 'Green Laboratory'. The interests of organizations of the green industry translated their goals onto residents who out of desperation, or perhaps through manipulation, were willing to shift their goals of rebuilding their homes and community into the language of environmental goals. In mapping Latour’s ANT model onto the circumstances of the Holy Cross rebuild, Allen shows how the goal of rebuilding homes using green technology, though laudable, only represented half of the goals of the local residents.

Because success was defined in terms of homes built in the new way using green technology, community plans did not include economic infrastructure. This may, at least in part, explain why many homes continue vacant and not repaired. Other symptoms such as the reemergence of drug dealing, a lack of jobs, and no grocery stores in the district point to unintended consequences resultant from the narrowing of project goals too far. Turning a blind eye to some important social factors that were a part of the original community context helped to a certain point such as securing funds, materials and expertise, but an opportunity was lost to more significantly impact the community in positive way. In fact, some residents could argue they are worse off than before the project in that they now have a group of homes rather than a community like had existed before the hurricane.

The ability of scientists, or any other group, to define desired outcomes from purely science-related  or technology-related goals can make the group successful in its defined criteria. Unfortunately, like the generals who win battles and lose wars, by ignoring success criteria of other groups involved in a given project, science may miss as much knowledge as it gains. Worse, it may come to conclusions that are at least partially incorrect. 

Throughout Pierre Bourdieu’s writing in Science of Science and Reflexivity he relates his ideas to a number of works by previous scholars. His major criticism of most is their focus on the microcosm as model for global themes. He argues that individuals and institutions within a field are shaped by the context of the field and the interaction between fields. He does nod to some of the other authors as well when their work relates to the idea of fields, though perhaps using different language then Bourdieu does.

Scientific capital for Bourdieu is symbolic capital such as scientific authority. Such capital leads to power within a given scientific field. Symbolic capital comes through both cognitive and communicative relations, generally within the field. It results from recognition by competitors who are referred to as agents. As competing agents attempt to discredit (like Karl Popper speaks to) and fail to, or find more evidence to support competing ideas, they in turn reference the work adding capital. Such capital only comes within the framework created within a field by the agents in that field who hold scientific authority (power).

Like Robert Merton and Margaret Rossiter, he supports the idea that the more power/capital one has, the more one tends to gain. His perspective differs slightly in that having power (scientific authority) gives the scientist more control over economic, social and cultural resources allowing them to shape the rules of success within a given field. This also differs from Marx who links power purely to physical or economic capital. Similar to Rossiter’s ‘Matilda’ when some scientists find themselves with less capital they are more inclined to appeal to outside sources of capital, meaning from another field (political, economic, etc.). Bourdieu refers to this as Zhandovism.

Like Bruno Latour, Bourdieu sees advancement (personal and of scientific knowledge) as a function of struggle. He sees the pattern of hybridization concepts expressed by Ben-David linked to the shifts in borders between fields. As rules or positioning changes within a field, the border between fields shifts as well. Players in the field (scientists) may ultimately shift fields if they see opportunity for more power in a related field rather than stay in their own. This effect also results from Zhandovism mentioned earlier.

As the younger scientists look to advance in their field Bourdieu discusses two strategies each may choose to adopt. They may opt a succession strategy of gaining scientific capital by following the rules created by those in power within the field. They might be subversive by seeking to break the structure and create a new hierarchy. In either case it is the struggle itself (constantly challenging the existing hierarchy) that advances the individual, and also scientific knowledge.

Bourdieu refers to structure within the field as creating a space of possibilities. By this he means there are differing ways to do science. The structure within the field which creates the space will be different from field to field, and is influenced by both individuals and institutions. Tension denotes difference within the field, and pressure is difference between fields. This is not unlike Latour’s concepts of competition over cooperation. Science, Technology and Society (STS) scholars, according to Bourdieu, should be less interested in the science of scientists, and more interested in the science of scientific knowledge. Noting this approach he argues that statics and dynamics are inseparable.

Referring to a biblical phrase found in the New Testament book of Matthew, Robert K. Merton speaks to a halo effect on successful scientists, and a reciprocal barrier to scientific initiates. Margaret W. Rossiter argues Merton puts too much emphasis on the positive side of the equation, the haves, while neglecting an understanding of those who are often overlooked, the have-nots.

The so-called Matthew effect describes a social and psychological base for a reward and communications system based on the biblical quote, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." A kind of hierarchy forms in the scientific community. The worth of a scientific career is peer-adjudged based on metrics such as the quantity of publications, citations of one’s papers by others, and the value placed on the school or laboratory a scientist is associated with. In a sort of reciprocal measurement, works by scientists of rank are peer-adjudged higher based on the perceived rank of the author or co-author.

The opposite is also true in that works of lesser known scientists that may be of equal, or even higher quality, as compared with works created by ranking scientists are overlooked by many involved in peer review. Merton points out that recognized scientists understand this happens so they often try to place others in a more prominent co-author position in a paper, or even leave out their own names altogether. They do this in order to help newer associates gain rank. Despite the good intention, it is often true that the lesser ranked co-authors are overlooked, and the ranked author acknowledged. Even when the ranked author chooses to not be listed as a co-author, when it is known that the others are associated with the scientist of rank, the halo effect still encourages peers to give credit to the well-known name because the others are known to be linked to them.

Rossiter renamed the negative portion of the Matthew effect as the Matilda effect after Matilda Joslyn Gage. She did this because of the experience Gage had that reflects the effect. It is Rossiter’s contention that Merton spent too much of his explanation of the Matthew effect on ranked scientists, how the halo effect works, and how the haves attempt to help the have-nots. Rossiter prefers to speak to the negative impact on the have-nots, especially women contributors.

Pointing to a number of historical examples in which women were either primary author, or a significant co-author and simultaneously ignored, Rossiter demonstrates how women have a double hurtle to overcome. Along with the barriers identified by Merton, women have the additional challenge of overcoming sexism. In fact, in several places in his paper Merton refers to the work of Harriet Zuckerman who created the data his paper is based on. Rossiter chides Merton for not identifying Zuckerman as a co-author which he later agreed he should have done. 

Rossiter also points out that Merton may have been making a supportive case of the Matthew effect as functional, and suggested lesser-known scientists might learn how to take advantage of the system.

Rossiter does admit there are some women scientists who have been noted by peers as a ranking member of the scientific society, but she argues these to be exceptions. She also points out how the women of note had to achieve recognition by more overwhelming accomplishment to rise in the scientific annals than their male counterparts. The negative impact seems even higher on collaborating women when they are married to the ‘main’ (male) author. For example it can be noted that Zuckerman was a student of Merton and they eventually married. 

​The Matthew statement taken from the Bible does not match in context with the Matthew effect based on the phrase. Despite that, the positive lift given to some, and the artificial barriers imposed on others, seem supported by the arguments of both Merton and Rossiter.  

In the making of scientific knowledge Thomas Kuhn would say something seems true until something else seems truer. Karl Popper would say something seems true until it isn’t. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar would say something seems true until it doesn’t seem true

In a number of publications, Kuhn explained the growth of scientific knowledge in the form a paradigm. A new way of explaining the physical world grows in popularity. It does so because the gist of the big idea better explains a particular set of conundrums than the previous big idea that had been accepted. The way a new paradigm becomes generally accepted happens as the previous paradigm that seemed to answer well enough, over time, doesn’t answer for all the questions scientists come up with on a given topic. This doesn’t happen right away. Scientists dedicate much effort and time into supporting the established paradigm. Eventually observations begin to raise questions that the established theories can’t answer. At some point some scientist or scientific group (usually newer, younger scientists less committed to the theories of the previous generation) begin to form new ideas to better satisfy the questions not answered by established science. The result is a paradigm shift, a new big theory, and the cycle repeats itself.

In sharing this approach to changing scientific knowledge, Kuhn references Popper. The perspective of the referred to theorist purports the concept of the null-hypothesis. Popper argued that evidence leads to a theory. The theory inspires more experimentation and debate. Eventually the debate leads to attempts to disprove a theory experimentally in the face of growing supportive evidence. With the null-hypothesis approach a scientists looks for at least one way in which the accepted theory does not apply. Once a theory is not true in at least one case, then it is not true.

Latour and Woolgar share works in which they review how some scientific ideas become accepted with or without supporting empirical data. They examine artifacts in the form of scientific journals. Theories gain popularity based on documented evidence (not necessarily proof) as written and published. Popularity of scientific ideas may have as much to do with how articles are written, or the reputation of the journal, authoring scientist, or institution an authoring scientist belongs to, than any actual evidence. There are even specific types of statements used in articles that make the shared ideas more or less likely to be successfully believed by scientific readers. It is entirely possible for a theory to be accepted or rejected by the bulk of the greater scientific society based on the way articles for and against are written. Latour and Woolgar refer to the approach of theory adoption by journal article creation as ‘literary inscription’. It seems scientists, like the rest of us, can be more or less convincing, and more or less convinced, based on subjective factors as much as supposedly objective data.

All of these beliefs about how scientific knowledge changes bring into question if supposed ‘growth’ or ‘advancement’ are fit descriptors. Latour and Woolgar argue ‘fact’ and literary inscription may have congruence, but are not necessarily co-constructive. Their assessment clearly argues in favor of social factors as a guiding influence on what is accepted by the scientific community. Popper argues it is social factors that incentivize scientific torpedoing of theories. Kuhn supports the idea that social factors influence those scientists that adopt and support an established paradigm; an older generation more invested in the old paradigm. Likewise those who seek a new paradigm are influenced by social factors as well; a drive to be the new leaders of scientific industry thought.