Beach Haven

You may or may not be aware that I’m foolish enough to be embarked on another post-graduate program. I’m not sure why I’m doing this as an old guy at the end of my working career, but it’s what happening. The degree is in Science, Technology and Society. Fall semester was about the history of technology. Spring semester is about sociological issues in science. In both semesters there was reference to a period in American history when industrial machinery moved from human or animal power, to water power, to steam power, then to electrical and petroleum-based power. There was a lot more on this during the technology class, but still some interesting effects in the look at social issues.

Why this is coming up is that while sitting in the temple, listening to general conference, and during down times in my work travel I was thinking about Beach Haven. It’s a town in Pennsylvania that was founded by one of our ancestors who we named our son Nathan after. I grew up in Berwick, a small blue collar town along the Susquehanna River. Beach Haven is just a few miles upstream from Berwick on the same side of the river, and is more like a small village, a sort of hamlet.

Growing up I remembered Beach Haven for two things. Fishing, and the steam-powered laundry that belonged to “Uncle Morris”. His actual name was Morris Kemmerer. By the time I had any sort of understanding he would have been in his 80s. I looked him up in the Family Tree software. I get these notes from them on occasion letting me know about one relative or other that could have temple work done. Now that my mother has passed away I’m paying a little more attention to family history. I had always thought Morris was my dad’s uncle (a sibling to my Grammy Beach – Violet Kemmerer Beach), but as it turns out he was his great uncle (sibling to my Grammy Beach’s father - Alfred).

Fishing in Beach Haven in those days was either done in one of many eddies that form along the bank, or in the remnants of the old 19th century canal system that still existed in pieces. When the water was high there was good fishing in the canals. When it was low there was not. That’s when we’d fish the main river.

The steam laundry was another thing altogether. For a young boy like me at the time it was an enticing maze of machinery, large conveyor belts driving the machinery, and the sound of hissing steam everywhere in the hot damp atmosphere. My dad told me how he used to help work there when he was a kid. I learned through my academic work that such businesses were common in the days when laundry machinery in homes was uncommon. By the time I came along they were not really doing laundry for families anymore, but were doing more industrial cleaning like for restaurants, hospitals and hotels.

In Beach Haven there really was nothing else. You could count the total number of homes on your fingers and toes, and there were no other businesses but Uncle Morris’ laundry. Today the landscape has drastically changed. The laundry closed after Morris died. Just before we moved away in the mid-1970s construction was started on a nuclear power plant that now stands on a hill overlooking (overshadowing) the town. The last time we visited there were still a few homes and an old cemetery where some of our ancestors are buried. We couldn’t see any remnants of the old canals anymore.

What was the same was the river. It flows continuously at varying heights depending on the time of the year. The water still looks the same as it did when I was young, as does the countryside of rolling, tree-covered Appalachia. Looking closely the downstream pointing ‘V’ shape of the old eel walls are visible just under the surface of the water. From Beach Haven you can look across the river and see the cliff face of Council Cup. It’s a promontory that gets its name from the fact that it served as a place where the old Indian tribes that lived in the area held their councils before the whites moved in, or at least that’s the story I heard back in the day. When I was young we used to go up to the back side of the cliffs at Council Cup and pick wild blackberries in the summer.

I felt inspired to consider how in some ways our times are changing. Like the town, human society shifts with successive generations, but only within limits. There really are no new ideas at the macro level of society. We humans just keep rotating and combining ideas that have been around throughout history. Some ideas are adopted to the detriment and suffering of millions of people. Others bring more or less stability.

What stays constant are the basic principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can choose to align ourselves with them and find more joy in life, or not and find less of it. 
​

His name is Clayton. He sells flowers on the sidewalk next to Union Station in Washington DC. He and I have been chit-chatting for nearly five years. I'm not special in this way. Clayton talks to many people. He knows many of us by name. He is a consummate salesman. Never pushy, his approach has gotten me to pickup up flowers for my wife randomly for a long time. I'd say he's in his mid-seventies.

He tells interesting stories. He also has a street-vendor call that reminds me of similar folks I first encountered in Spain many years ago. I added a quick recording of it below. 

Clayton is at his business regardless of the weather. When it's rainy he also sells umbrellas. Sometimes he adds socks, or gloves, or scarfs, or some other seasonal wares. About two years ago Clayton was not at his usual station. This went on for about two weeks. Another person filled in for him a couple of those days, but his cart generally sat empty. When he came back he shared with me that he had a heart attack. They put a stint in his heart and he was doing better. 

My wife sometimes makes a to do about me bringing home some flowers for her on occasion. I think Clayton is selling a little bit of joy. I enjoy chatting with him. He enjoys chatting with everybody and selling me a few flowers. Michelle enjoys me bringing them home to her. I enjoy seeing the happiness it brings her. So Clayton doesn't just make somebody happy. He makes everybody happy. Seems like it's worth the $5.

​For those of you who have some interest in history, I recently read an article about an early (mid-1800s) mechanical computer. It was envisioned by a fellow named Charles Babbage and was not based on binary, but rather decimal numbers. The first version, the Difference Engine, he was able to build in part and demonstrate. The later version was called the Analytical Engine. It could add, subtract, multiply, and divide. There are a bunch of YouTube videos on the ideas he had and one version of the machine that has been built, but the actual device was not constructed until about 130 years after he invented it. Some of his base ideas inspired later approaches into modern computers.
​

Over the week of July 4th last year Michelle and I visited our son Matthew in Italy. One of the cities we visited was Trieste. It is very close to Croatia. The area around Trieste is very beautiful. The water in the Adriatic Sea is crystal clear and a deep azure in color. 

This week I was thinking of our trip with Matthew. Each day we would venture out to visit a different city. A few days we hit more than one. We were on the go constantly with the help of our local tour guide, our son. It was lots of fun. We saw all sorts of castles, cathedrals, museums, cobble stone streets, and ocean views. That part of the trip was memorable, and we have the pictures, and the sore feet to remember it by. We did have three specific experiences that I think were the best. They involved getting to visit with some locals.

While in Padua, one of Matt’s friends who lives there joined us for a nice evening meal and stroll. Her name is Eleonora Russo, and she is working on a degree in education in Padua. It was refreshing to hang out with two young people and take in their enthusiasm for Italy and life.

Later in the week we had dinner in the home of another of Matt’s friends and her parents. Her name is Valentina Mazzoni, and she just completed a degree in education. I’m trying to remember the names of her parents. I think it was Eduardo and Anna. You can see how old I’m getting, in particular when it comes to remembering names. The dinner they treated us to in their home was terrific! When we got there it was raining like crazy. By the time we left the rain had passed and the evening was cool.

The other main interaction we had with locals was Sunday morning. Matt was nice enough to take us to the little branch of our church that was closest to his home. It is in the city of Treviso. He had planned on us touring the city anyway with its old walls and interesting streets. The town itself has multiple streams running through it that are channeled through some of the most picturesque scenes. In some places we saw actively used water wheels.

On the Sunday we visited there were about a dozen people in Sacrament. Three of the dozen were us. It was fast and testimony Sunday. I remember how those go in a small branch. After most had shared a few thoughts it looked like the Branch President would conclude the meeting early. So I brought Matthew to the front with me. The sister missionaries offered to translate, but I asked Matt to.

What I shared with them, and what I want to share with you, was my experience in small branches. My first church experience was in a small branch in Sunbury, PA. It was about a 45 minute drive from where we lived in Berwick, PA. Not long after we joined the church a new branch was formed in Berwick. We were about four families and a few single adults. I also attended several small branches as I served my mission in Spain. For example in Algeciras we met in a three bedroom apartment rented by the church. Our children also remember the seven years we lived in Leadville, CO where at times our family made up about 1/3 of the active branch members. Our youngest, Jacob and Emily, were born there.

Today we attend a ward of about 150 to 200 active members. What each of these congregations has in common, as I mentioned that day in Treviso, are humble people, doing their best to serve God and their neighbors. I could feel the same Spirit in that little branch in Italy as I have felt in the larger metropolitan wards we have attended in Salt Lake City, UT, San Diego, CA, Lincoln, NE, Atlanta, GA, and now near Washington DC. The number of members in a unit does not change the amount of the blessings that come from the presence of the Holy Ghost.

One note, I learned later that one of the sisters (not a missionary sister) was from Spain. I wish I’d have known that before we left so I could have chatted with her. One of the sister missionaries serving there came from Australia and the other from Virginia. She lives near Lynchburg, and was close to finishing her mission. I'm sure she has finished by now. Whether one serves in a large or small ward, or a tiny branch of the church, we are about the Lord’s errand. 
​

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.

I know there is a posted headline version of this story on the BHP page, but I wanted to make some additional comment here.

After attending Mom's funeral, we returned to Utah a few weeks later. This time there were two reasons for our visit. The first and most important was to attend the wedding of our oldest son, Nathan, to Vicky Summerville. They were sealed in the Ogden, Utah temple. The weekend included all sorts of family activities. After the wedding, the happy couple took advantage of the week of Nate’s college spring break for their honeymoon to Portland, Oregon. We are so pleased to see them both happy, and to see them start their life together under the strength of eternal covenants.
 
The other reason for the trip was to help finalize the closing of my mother’s home after her passing. There were some larger items that needed to come back to Virginia with us. My wife, Michelle, took a friend from our church with her, and the two of them drove to Utah pulling a near-empty trailer. I flew out for the wedding. After all the wedding festivities, Michelle and I drove the car and full trailer back to Virginia. There are still a few items awaiting us in Utah to haul back, but they will wait where they are until summer time when we will go back out due to the impending birth of our ninth grandchild, John Coates.
 
In clearing out all my mother’s things there was one in particular that had some real monetary value. It was one of those high-end motorized wheelchairs. When we looked online it seemed to be worth several thousand dollars. We posted it online for sale and waited to see what would happen.

What actually happened? In a word, nothing. Despite the need and the value it was clear the two were not matching up. It became obvious that those who could afford to buy one likely already had, and were not in the market for another. Those who needed but could not afford it, continued to make do with whatever arrangement they already had. Basically, we had nobody interested in buying it.

So my sister, Lisa, asked around. The last few years of her life, my mother lived in a neighborhood where many other older folks lived. After asking around, Lisa was able to get a referral of a Vietnam veteran in the neighborhood, Leon Snow, that could really use the chair, but had no way to pay for it. We decided to donate the chair to him. Mom would have liked that. As it turns out, the fellow is a member of my other sister Crystal's church, and is good friends with Jerry, my brother-in-law.
 
It makes me think about how although life can be unfair at times, and it’s not intended to be, that there are little things here and there we can do to help in very specific positive ways. Although Christ taught to the multitudes, his miracles were almost always in service of the one.

As we see all the need around us, or have needs in our own lives, it can be easy to feel overwhelmed and discouraged. I see it every day on the street as I walk from Union Station in Washington DC, to my office only a few blocks away. Good news! We don’t have to help everyone we see with everything they need. We do what we can and have faith that God can have others help where we can’t. We also need faith enough to know that some won’t be helped in this life to the level that we (or they) believe they ‘ought to be’. We act in the present, as ineffective as our efforts may seem. We make a difference where we can. We do our best to try to keep an eternal view that this life is not meant to be fair. It’s meant to give us opportunity to learn and to help.
 
I know these ideas can sometimes sound like platitudes. I have seen firsthand when people have used the idea that they can’t do enough so they won’t do anything. They don’t even know what they are giving up when they focus on themselves, or only on the here-and-now. So with that here are a few phrases that have come to be my personal guiding thoughts:
 
“Wisdom through knowledge, integrity and service.”
A family motto we developed with our children when they were still young.
 
“I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded”
1 Ne. 3:7
 
“My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”
John 5:17
 
“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity”
1 Cor. 13:13

In this review articles by two writers both speak to the concept of displacement in the creation, or production, of science, though with some variation in vocabulary, and some splitting of STS hairs. STS stands for Science, Technology and Society and is a field of scientific study. For Bruno Latour, scientists never leave the lab. They just expand the boundaries of the lab to include places that might be thought of as ‘outside’. For Michel Callon, the border areas within the network of science production are blurred through translation.

Latour describes the dissolution of the inside/outside boundary as a critique of STS scholarship. Laboratory scientists expand the lab boundaries by creating some level of control over conditions at sites potentially benefiting from the work. For example, Louis Pasteur was able to completely isolate anthrax in the lab, grow it from the microscopic world to the visible world. Once his group was able to figure out how to weaken the strain in the controlled environment, some of the controls were recreated at a specific farm for further testing. In this way both micro/macro and inside/outside had less, or even no, real meaning.

Callon similarly argues that statements (scientific product) can be taken out of the laboratories through translation. As the language changes through ‘black boxing’ pieces of the translation chain, scientific information can become another kind of information (or power) such as political or economic.

Both authors speak to the idea of scale inversion. Latour shows how anthrax is grown from the microscopic to the visible. Then the cultures are turned into a vaccine, and the border of the lab is extended to the farm. As controls are imposed on the farm, the macro of the farm is lessened and the micro of anthrax is enlarged. At first the conditions of the farm loom larger over the lab, but later the strength that comes from the vaccine changes the farm into a subset of the lab. Likewise, the strength of the disease becomes subject to the strength of the vaccine. In Callon’s case, the idea of translation also inverts the power dynamic. For example, once atomic theory could be translated into the theory of the atom bomb FDR’s administration shifted from ignoring the science talk, to pushing for it, and even funding it. Modification of scale for both authors is a modification of society as network actors are displaced (Latour) and/or power is redefined through translation (Callon).

In similar ways both Latour and Callon speak to the power of publication. Latour describes inscription as a way to sell science, in that the ideas of science really only exist in the papers published. The strength of science is seen as being more about the strength of the publication than the actual science, though the science needs to be in place to support the paper as much as possible. Callon argues the publication is the product of science. Expression of ideas and supporting arguments as published is the purpose of the efforts in the lab or in the field. The published documents give science its power as the information is translated into other fields where non-scientific actors in the network interact.

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.

Really this entry could be called Woolgar on MacKenzie on Yule vs. Pearson. Steve Woolgar wrote a critique of a paper published by Donald MacKenzie. MacKenzie's paper was titled Statistical Theory and Social Interests: A Case-Study. In part MacKenzie used an argument between to statistical theorists named George Udny Yule and Karl Pearson to explain how scientists are socially influenced both in their choice of study, their approach to the study, and the conclusions drawn in their study.  Woolgar's paper was titled Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science. 

Just as histories may reflect the perspective of historians as much (or more) as they reflect reality, so to, argues Woolgar, is the case of ‘interests’ defining the scientific ‘acts’ of scientists.

Woolgar uses MacKenzie’s review of the differing statistical theories of Pearce and Yule to make his points, though he eludes to an entire line of “Case Studies of Interests”. Woolgar shares a list of six very specific assumptions or approaches of analysts like MacKenzie who argue in favor of a causal relationship between the interests of a scientist and the eventual acts, or artifacts, produced by them. 

Within the assumptions of some case study reviewers there is a belief that scientific action is expressive of concomitant interests. Woolgar argues that in case studies, reviewers such as MacKenzie inevitably make the point that the scientific actions are expressive of these concomitant interests. He (Woolgar) explains that these coexisting phenomena do not necessarily make either causal of the other. He further argues that the interests derived by scientific actions are more likely derived by the interpretation of the analysts themselves.

As an example, Woolgar shows how MacKenzie attributes an interest in furthering the adoption of statistical theories of correlation and regression to the motivating factor of Pearson’s development of the rT and C concepts. Later MacKenzie adds a focus on analogy as a motivating factor (interest) of Pearson.  Woolgar essentially asks if piling on interests (motivations) is a way for MacKenzie to give credence to his interests-cause-actions argument. Woolgar shows how those attempting to show a cause-and-effect relationship between interests and acts must first adopt a belief that the interest and the act are independent of each other. He then shows that one could argue as easily that the act brings about the interest as the other way around. This line of thinking risks a certain circularity of thought that questions the linear argument of analysts like MacKenzie. Woolgar also points out that neither interest nor act may be causal of the other.

The idea that an analyst is completely objective in finding the route-cause interests is another of the suppositions Woolgar questions. MacKenzie argues independence of the interests from the acts to be able to assert one causing the other. By documenting a series of acts that form a pattern, the analyst is able to discover the route interest, or so goes the line of thinking. Woolgar argues that any number of potential motivations could explain a pattern of actions so it would be difficult at best to discover the specific motivation(s) if not explicitly documented by the scientist being studied.  The person analyzing potential interests are themselves influenced by their own interests as they attempt to pare down the list of candidate motivations.

If Woolgar takes issue with interests leading to acts, he accidentally supports the view by using his argument about analysts‘ interests leading to their acts (their analyses). He himself is attempting to discover motivation of the analysts of motivation. Another weak point of Woolgar’s perspective is in his criticism of MacKenzie’s generalization of supporting documentation by Pearson and Yule by simply stating they each supply more information about their interests in other documents. Woolgar argues that by generalizing these other works, and not giving any idea what the other works are, or even how many of them exist, MacKenzie is attempting to bolster his argument without actually giving evidence. 

If necessity is the mother of invention, then Boris Hessen stretches the proverb to say that economic goals are the mother of necessity, which is the mother of invention, which is the mother of basic science. His argument stems from a few practical examples. It is juxtaposed to other beliefs that once some basic scientific discovery is made, then some specific applications are invented from the new knowledge, which are later put to economic use. Hessen support the opposite view.

As the industrial revolution encouraged increased division of labor, factory owners were looking for ways to increase productivity. Hessen’s specific example was for a cloth weaving spinning jenny. The early models were powered by hand, then by water. Both methods had serious limitations. The goal was to allow the device to be operated “without fingers.” The answer seemed to be in the steam engine which was originally designed for work in the mining industry. The hope was to make it such that a steam engine could be more generically applied to other industrial uses as a “universal motor.”

The engine proved practical, but another issue arose in the increased need (read increased cost) for large amounts of fuel to heat water into steam sufficient to power the weaving factories ‘round-the-clock. This is yet another economic issue that required thought. Enter Nicolas Carnot looking to improved efficiency of the steam engines to increase capacity or lower required fuel. He asked the basic question whether power from steam heat was unbounded. He wanted to know if it were possible to generate steam power with no upper limit at a higher rate than the additional fuel used to increase the required heat. In his approaches to determine the “coefficient of profitable activity” he also managed to establish the foundation of a new scientific discipline within physics known as thermodynamics. Based on Carnot’s efforts other scientists (e.g. Kelvin and Clausius) were eventually able to define the second law of thermodynamics. In this example Hessen depicts these events as a trajectory from a set of economic goals, to employment of an invention, to discovery of a new form of science.

Hessen also points to another way the invention of the steam engine encouraged basic science. Every mechanical invention needs a motive power, a transmission mechanism of that power, and an executing instrument driven by the transmission mechanism. The study of the forms of motion of, and efficiency in, the steam engine led to more general studies of the motion of matter. Hessen specifically points to mechanics, heat, and eventually electricity. Similar to the eventuality of thermodynamics, study in each of these areas for practical application likewise generated new fields of investigation in basic science.

As each of these more and more specific areas of science developed, Hessen draws a correlation to Marxist principles of classification. He points to Friedrich Engels’ conception of “interconnection” and “hierarchy” of the movements of matter as symbolized in the order of various study disciplines within science being both interconnected and forming a hierarchy of social arrangement. Engels provided theories of conservation and conversion of energy based on a “materialistic conception of nature” akin to ideas espoused by Marx and Lenin. Hessen argues these Marxist ideas lead to an understanding of the “historical succession” of the development of the associated sciences of motion. The succession being yet another trajectory from economic goal, to practical invention, to scientific definition.

Here is the first of two final exam papers written for the History of Technology class last semester (Fall 2018). Try not to doze off.

Last semester my class was on the History of Technology. One assignment I had was to find three primary sources and document information about them. In a later assignment we were asked to write a paper about what the sources were telling us. Here is the form we were to use to analyse each source.

Below is the list of the three sources I was able to dig up:

Then, putting it all together, below is the output of the work on primary sources:

I'm dumb enough to have started another degree program. This time I'm attending Virginia Tech. My son Matt expressed an interest in reading whatever feeble work I manage to produce along the way so here is a first installment. I actually finished this class before the Christmas holiday so I'm uploading this after the fact. Try not to fall asleep.

​Protests seem to be a regular event here in DC. The issues that inspire people to take to the streets are many and varied. Some of the protests involve people with a specific perspective, some involve multiple groups with opposing perspectives. Recently I noticed a picture on the web of a person holding a protest sign. The sign says, “the [sic] most violent element in society is IGNORANCE.”

This sign struck me as a reminder of many conversations I’ve either heard or participated in. The topic could be political, religious, cultural, or any other hot button. The sentiment might be stated in any number of ways. “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “If you had to put up with what I do you’d understand.” “You’ve never had to deal with this.” “You are narrow minded.” I could keep going, but what seems to me is behind any of these variations on a theme is an idea that “I have information that you don’t. If you only knew what I do, you’d agree with me.”

I often hear the same sentiment being expressed by people holding opposing views on the same topic. It really doesn’t seem to strike me that either person in such a conversation has not heard what the other person has to say, meaning they both probably do have access to the same information. If ignorance is a lack of information, and presumably not a lack of intelligence, then neither side of such a debate is ignorant. They just genuinely disagree.

Any number of factors could cause disputing parties to stress some information and down play other information. There may be agendas involved. Either or both sides could be looking for a specific outcome so they argue the facts that support their goal. Values could differ. Depending on the atmosphere a person has lived in, words or ideals could be defined very differently from one person or group to another. For example if the disputants are considering some issue involving the word “freedom”, one side may be speaking of their freedom to… while the other may be speaking of their freedom from…

I take issue with people who take the stance that if someone does not agree with them it’s only because of their lack of information, their ignorance. It is just as likely that the person making such a claim has themselves an information shortage. It’s also just a likely that neither are making a decision in ignorance. The anger seems to well up when either or all sides of an issue begin to assume something even more sinister in a person’s motivation, or because either or all actually do have sinister motivations. Unfortunately, we humans don’t really know what a person is actually thinking or why they choose to do what they do. Likewise, to me, if a person assumes they know more than their opposition they may be part of a different destructive “element in society”; arrogance.

​Like many others these days, I listen to a selection of podcasts. One of my regulars by NPR is titled Hidden Brain by Shankar Vedantam. Recently he had an episode titled Creating God and featured an evolutionary scientist named Azim Shariff. In essence, the ideas the guest shared pointed to an evolutionary need in early human development for creating community. The result, says Shariff, was the invention of religion, the invention of God. Creating a belief system, goes the argument, helped small groups form a common ethos and a method of bonding. Toward the end of the episode Shariff affirmed he is an atheist. Here is the description of the episode on the Hidden Brain website:

If you've taken part in a religious service, have you ever stopped to think about how it all came to be? How did people become believers? Where did the rituals come from? And most of all, what purpose does it all serve? This week, we explore these questions with psychologist Azim Shariff, who argues that we can think of religion from a Darwinian perspective, as an innovation that helped human societies to survive and flourish.

https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain

I have made an argument many times about science and faith, but after listening to the podcast I feel a need to make it again. I firmly believe that human intellect has limits, and the amount of data available to human kind is limited as well. A limited reasoning ability coupled with a limited amount of information often leads to only a partial, or sometimes completely inaccurate, understanding of truth.

A few days after listening to the podcast I listened to a Ted Radio Hour that was focused on this issue of what science knows about truth. The episode is titled The Spirit of Inquiry. In particular, a recurring theme in the episode was about the trap of arrogance scientists often fall into by believing the conclusions science draws. Multiple presenters, scientists not religionists, spoke about how science really doesn’t prove anything, but gives us a reasonable framework to try to understand the world around us, and the worlds in the cosmos. Here is the description of the episode on the TED Radio Hour website:

The force behind scientific progress is the simple act of asking questions. This episode, TED speakers explore how a deeper and more humble style of inquiry may help achieve the next big breakthrough.

https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/archive

There is a danger in this approach as well. A follower of this line of thought can come to the conclusion that truth is not really knowable. In his epistle to Timothy, the apostle Paul describes people in the last days. One way he describes them (us?) is in 2 Timothy 3

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

When atheistic scientists remove the possibility of the existence of God, and accept completely the ideas of evolution, I can understand how they, like Azim Shariff, come to the conclusions they do. That said, if you assume one possibility should be completely ruled out (the actual existence of God for example), and you assume another possibility as the only description of reality, then how can someone really put stock in such a one-sided perspective? Isn’t that the same argument such scientists use to discredit those who claim a belief in God?

Personally I put little hope in any version of truth that relies only on the logic arguments of human kind, be they scientific or religious. By my own experience through prayer, and seeing results in the lives of those who choose to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find reason to view any idea through the lens of how it does or does not align with truth revealed through ancient and modern prophets. Coming to know truth requires more than thought. The Savior puts it this way in John 7

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

For me, faith is stronger than belief. Believing in something does not make it true, nor does belief imply action. Faith is doing His will (taking action). Doing His will increases faith. As faith increases, so does understanding. As understanding increases, a person comes closer to truth. As the scripture notes, doing His will discloses truth. Stated in the negative, if the doctrine is not from God, is not true, then doing the act will reveal to the doer it’s untruth, and faith does not increase.

I’m just fine that many do not accept my perspective. I’m also aware that when considering religion there is a great deal of variation and contradiction among belief systems. I wonder, though, how that is any different than the variation and contradiction among various scientific camps. Scientific evidence is just that, evidence. Scientific theory is just that, theory. So much of what gets represented as "fact" later proves not factual. Religions have come and gone throughout human history. So too have scientific theories.

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.

This past Monday (20 August) was the day. Did you miss it like I did? Yesterday, a day late, I saw a posting about it and did a little quick looking up. I found a few interesting posts.

This one includes an audio clip from someone at WTOP:

https://wtop.com/life-style/2018/08/my-take-what-does-national-radio-day-mean-in-2018/

This one comes from someone calling himself a “radio survivor”:

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2018/08/20/happy-national-radio-day-2018/

This link is to a site that shows celebrated days all year for many different things. I note they remind us that 20 August was not only National Radio Day, but also National Chocolate Pecan Pie Day:

https://nationaldaycalendar.com/2018/08/19/august-20-2018-national-radio-day-national-chocolate-pecan-pie-day/

On the page is a “How To Observe” section:

To celebrate National Radio Day, listen to your favorite radio station and give special recognition to your local radio personalities. Use #NationalRadioDay to post on social media.

Educators, join the National Day Calendar Classroom to get your students involved in National Radio Day with crosswords puzzles, a podcast and more! Every week the classroom offers a variety of lessons and projects to keep children engaged and learning.

It turns out, National Radio Day even has its own Facebook page. Who Knew?

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=national%20radio%20day

To be sure not to miss it next year I dropped an annual recurring item into my Outlook calendar on 20 August. Radio is an important part of our society and has been for a very long time. We at NPR Distribution play a key role in helping radio stay strong and healthy as an industry. We do this as we help the greater public radio community share national content with local station listeners.

Maybe next year I’ll celebrate with a slice of chocolate pecan pie.

I had an interesting philosophical conversation recently with a family member. They shared with me a thread of logic I’ve heard before, and even supported myself once upon a time. The argument goes something like this. "If you think about all the things that have to happen just right to sustain life on our planet there is no way this could all just be a result of randomness."  This perspective is why my conversant felt God must exist. They went on to reason that the fact that we humans have yet to find another similar world that shows even more how rare such an existence is, and further shows how randomness could not have brought about planet earth and life. 
 
On the first point I agree with my family member. From the almost infinite number of combinations of processes such as physics, chemistry, electro-magnetics, etc. that are required, and all the inter-dependencies among these combinations, the probability of random life is infinitesimally small.  
 
From The Book of Mormon
Alma 30 
 
43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words. 
 
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. 
 
The second idea from my fellow philosopher in the family is where we differ. Again the thought was that since life outside this planet has not been discovered yet by science then it must be truly rare. It is this rarity, says the argument, that proves randomness alone could not cause life or we’d see more of it.  
 
Here’s why I differ with this thought. Scientists rightfully argue that if a God we’re so engaged in creative activity, then why don’t we see more of it? Essentially these folks interpret the same data to an opposite conclusion. My family member thinks the scarcity of life evidence means God must be actively causing life. Much of the scientific world thinks the scarcity of life evidence means there is no God, and life is a result of random unplanned events.  
 
Perhaps both are reach differing conclusions based on the same data because they both assume the data is correct. The premise of both positions is that there is no evidence of life beyond earth. I say that human kind has not discovered life beyond earth. Non-discovered life is not the same as non-existent life. Our ability to peer into the cosmos has been enhanced in recent decades, to be sure. At the same time, astronomers will still tell us how little we can see beyond the immediacy of our own solar system. 
 
From The Pearl of Great Price
Moses 1 
 
26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. 
 
27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God. 
 
28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. 
 
29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. 
 
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them? 
 
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 
 
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 
 
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 
 
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 
 
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 
 
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 
 
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 
 
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 
 
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 
 
I believe that as our knowledge increases we will eventually find life in the cosmos either through technology, or because our "earth shall pass away... and another come". The low probability of random generation of life to me shows that life is created and not spontaneous. I also argue that an abundance of life in the cosmos would be more supportive of a purposeful creative God. Because the odds of randomness are so low that would bolster the argument that life should be rare without God. I believe life is abundant in the cosmos, but mankind has not been able to discover it yet through our advancing, but still limited technology. I believe the abundance of life is created by God. 
 ​

Last week was Father’s Day. It was nice to be able to speak with our children and grandchildren. In particular, one of adult children sent me a nice note. It was of the sort that makes parents feel they have done a good job. In particular the note was speaking about how the writer had learned the importance of service to others through my example. The note spoke about how I would likely point to God as the driving force to my part of our family’s service to others, but also pointed to the idea that my service was also about my own personal will and drive.

These intertwined ideas settled into my mind for the past week. Thinking, as I often do, in the form of a continuum, if we think about what drives us, one continuum could be bounded by complete inspiration (or God-guided) on one end, and by complete personal will (or agency) on the other. Each of us would fall somewhere along that line depending at some level on inspiration and at some level on agency.

I have often thought of this issue in the past like building a bridge. We are on one side of the intended span with some level of bridge-building supplies. These could be thought of as talents maybe. On the other end is the Savior with His supplies. He will dedicate for our bridge enough of His supplies (the Atonement) that it takes to cover the portion of the span where we will run out of supplies. If we do the work and use our talents as far as we can, then He completes the bridge. If we choose to not use all our talent then there will be a gap left in the end.

A few scriptures to consider:

From Doctrine and Covenants

D&C 58 
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. 
 
From The Book of Mormon

Alma 60 
11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain. 
 
Either 12 
27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. 
28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me--the fountain of all righteousness. 
 
From The Holy Bible

Hebrews 11 
This chapter gives a long list of many famous biblical stories that were accomplished “by faith”.

To me, just as “faith without works is dead,” so too are human efforts fleeting without God. 
​