Beach Haven

EINSTEIN’S CLOCKS, POINCARE’S MAPS
By Peter Galison
W.W. Norton & Company, 2003, 389 pages
 
Galison walks the reader through a significant shift in scientific thought through the contemporary history of the two titled scientists. Both were examining issues related to interactions of space and time. Einstein is obviously the more famous outside scientific circles. Both were approaching the subject in connection with some famous mathematical equations published by physicist James Clerk Maxwell. These two were not alone. Many others (Gauss, Plank, Ampere, Faraday, etc.) created theories around his ideas to later be widely adopted in this area Maxwell explored on electromagnetism.
 
Poincare was interested, among other things, in creating widely adopted convention on both the reference longitude grid of the globe, and a method for setting a universal time system. The practical goals led him to some larger theoretical conclusions. He was a few decades ahead of the younger Einstein, and both referenced some of the same theoretical works that preceded them. Einstein was less interested in setting a universal standard, as we was in trying to understand relationships among space, time, and relative speed.
 
It seems like there were two larger differences between these two theorists. Poincare wanted to have a central reference point from which to compare other similar points within time and space. He also believed in the long held assumption of the existence of an aether in space, meaning an undefined substance that exists everywhere. Einstein was not worried about either of these. He was looking for a way to explain any motion or time relative to any other motion or time. He also simply ignored mathematical considerations of trying to account for an unknown substance such as the aether. Ultimately, we all know which view of physics became the ‘standard’ in our day.
 
For Poincare, it is not important how one measures time, distance, etc. so long as all agree to the system. The French were looking for a rationalized (specifically decimal-based) system. For example Galison notes that Poincare and others complained that one needs three measurements for time (h, m, s) or for global positioning (d, m, s). Setting measurements on multiples of 24 or 360 as was and still is the norm, is arguably more complex and less arithmetically friendly than a 10-based system such as a 10 hour day or a circle (the globe) divided by 100 degrees.

All measurement is about convention (an adoption consensus). For example, Galison points out how Greenwich, England seemed to win out over Paris on the prime meridian argument because 70% of shipping captains of the day were already using it as such. There was actually a fairly strong competition between England and France over where the prime meridian should be located. Greenwich and Paris had the two most well-established astronomical observatories and both argued for the longitude of their particular location as the prime.

Literally any system can be adopted, and often is adopted, on false belief. Galison himself falls into such a trap at the bottom of page 34 where he describes finding latitude as 'simple' by noting the position of the polar star. Sadly, that only works for the northern hemisphere leaving out half of the globe! Northern countries 'decided' or 'adopted' a system assuming latitude based on this format (equator is 0 degrees, pole is 90 degrees) then simply applied the same logic in the opposite direction to get a north and south latitude scheme. It might have been just as effective to say the south pole was 0 degrees and the north pole 180 degrees (or any other scale, or in the opposite direction for that matter), and not start based on the north star with a northern hemisphere focus. Since northern (and most assuredly European) explorers and mariners adopted the polar star method for navigational convenience the system based on the 360-degree angular representation became the normal approach. Similar astronomical navigation was adopted in the Middle-East and Asia using the polar star.

Peter Galison makes a great case about how science is advanced through individual genius applied to the earlier thoughts of other individuals of genius. Seeking for practical answers, such as Poincare, can lead to larger theoretical explanatory attempts. The opposite is also true. For Einstein, the practical need for synchronized time inspired him, but he never really tried to invent methods for time synchronization. This work helps make the case that science is a social effort. Poincare’s desire to hold onto the idea of an aether, for example, became a roadblock for him. Galison makes a good case that he held to conservative assumptions because of his leadership roles within the hierarchy of established French scientific institutions. Einstein, on the other hand, created the base of what became his special and general theories of relativity while working in the Swiss patent office. Without the institutional trappings, Galison argues, Einstein was able to let go of long-held scientific assumptions. 
​

TRAIL & CAMP-FIRE STORIES
By Julia M. Seton
Seton Village Press, 1968, 156 pages
 
This is a fun book of short stories, mostly centered around Native American lore or summer camp experiences. About the first half of the book shares tales that start in a modern-day setting involving mostly Canadian native settings that quickly transition to similar settings from more ancient myth or legend. The latter half are more about modern-day (1960s) camp experiences.

Probably my favorite is The Story of the Two Pots. It’s a tale of two camps not far from each other. Both had a clay sculpting class. In the more well-to-do camp money was spent to bring in very fine potter’s clay from out of state, with lots of well-prepared pigments for adding splashes of color. At the camp for the not-so-wealthy campers the teacher described a spot along a nearby creek where they could find local clay that would need some extra work to clean and soften. They could use their shoestrings to cut out the clay in blocks. Several campers saw a chance to splash in the creek and play in the mud. They quickly volunteered to gather the clay. The teacher asked if anyone new of a large pile of ashes. Several said they did and volunteered to collect what would become the based for blacks and grays. Another knew where there was some lye near a cow barn. Another camper volunteered where there were broken bricks for red coloring. This approach went on until they had all the ingredients that could be obtained at hand for molding, coloring and curing the clay into works of art. Though it may have been true that those with the more expensive camp had better quality materials, the story argues the school potters had learned very little. “Our boys learned much and will never forget it.” “The first class was for making pots; the second class was for making boys.”
 
The stories can each be read in about 10 to 15 minutes making them usable for campers with short attention spans, especially in the evening after long days full of energetic activities. It is also about the right size to fit into a camp or hiking pack.
​

​THE AMBITIONS OF CURIOSITY
By G.E.R. Lloyd
Cambridge University Press, 2002, 175 pages
 
In this work Lloyd contrasts learning in ancient Greece and China. There is a deep look at both the methods of patronage by those in authority, as well as the emergence of brokers who connected scholars with patrons. He also reviews how technology was view differently in these two very different cultures.
 
I wonder if there is a form of codependency between the documented cycles predicting future events in the Chinese publications described by Lloyd, and the emperor and courtiers whose reputations rode on the outcomes. For example Lloyd points out that when a predicted event does not occur it is thought of as a sign that the emperor has special power to hold back the event, but if an event happens that was not predicted it was thought indicative of neglect of some sort on his part. It would be fair to assume, as does Lloyd, that if the emperor looks bad it would go poorly for his wise men who were supposed to help him know these things. Whereas events were supposedly dependent on predictableness and the strength of documentation, so too was the emperor likewise dependent on the strength of the documentation.
 
Similar metaphysics existed in Greek culture in relation to the Pantheon. Omens were both feared and sought after. Courtiers, or ‘wise men’, at times were from religious institutions, other times specifically non-religious. In either case, when patronage was attached to an adopted school, the professors of a given school (theoretical if not an actual institution) were personally at risk.
 
Many parallels can be drawn from today. Academics often study and publish at the behest of authority, public or private, in the form of grants or stipends. Science itself can sometimes bear the brunt of poor findings. Case in point could be the example of early believe there was little risk to humans from so-called ‘mad cow disease.’ As we now look at the latest wave of COVID-19, perhaps we should continue to both consider how science ‘progresses’ and how the same structures that encourage the scientific path might also limit inquiry.

​80° NORTH
By James Austrums, Alex Blue, Kiril Dobrev, Mia Karlsson, Andy Schell
59 North Sailing, 2019, 157 pages
 
I became aware of Andy Schell through his podcast On the Wind. He and his wife, Mia Karlsson, have built a business of running off-shore, long distance sailing charters. This book is a compilation of their experience sailing one of these charters from Sweden to Svalbard, above the Arctic Circle, then back south to Portugal. They took crew including members of SV Delos, a popular YouTube program about sailing adventure.
 
Along with the written accounts of their journey, many eye-popping photographs are included. The gorgeous views of mountainous landscapes and mountainous icebergs really help the reader to gain a better perspective of the wilds of the environment.
 
The writers and photographers also do a nice job at depicting some of the realities of off-shore sailing in a demanding environment. Anxiety, near misses, some tension among crew, and periods of letting off a little steam lead the reader along with the writers’ collective experience.
 
The book is enhanced with some online drone video footage from the voyage.

HOW USERS MATTER
Edited by Nelly Oudshoorn & Trevor Pinch
MIT Press, 2003, 340 pages


Most Significant Arguments

The work How Users Matter is a compilation of papers focused on the ideas of how users of technology and developers of technology influence one another in their decisions about technology. Likewise, a number of the papers also speak to non-users of technology and what might put them into a position of non-use. Much of the relationship between user and technology development is shown as co-constructive. For example in Christina Lindsay’s piece, From the Shadows, referring to TRS-80 users she speaks to a sort of migration from that conceived initially by a technology developer, to those that actually take up and reshape the technology as users. I this case she starts with the reflexive user where the developer and user are one and the same so the technology matches the person creating it. Then the configured user who is defined or limited by the construct of the technology. Finally a projected user where the developers imagine the persons tastes, motives, etc. All of these are at the beginning of the technology release process. Then the “real” user steps in, with the technology in hand, and may comply with the notions the designers had in mind, but many do not. In fact many reshape the technology. They even can form user groups that work together to reshape the technology and its use.

This idea of user groups like the TRS-80 group is another important theme that was iterated in a number of the papers. Some of these groups are like the friks and Raners in the Laegran article, Escape Vehicles. In these examples the users form a sort of self-help collective to share information and spark ideas among themselves. They also find identity and community among like-minded people. Then there are the user groups acting as spokespeople in the Parthasarathy article, Knowledge is Power, and the work by van Kammen, Who Represents the Users?. In these examples there are interested parties who are users (patients), but then they take on more of a leadership role in structuring, to one degree or another, policies based on their interpretation of the respective user community. One good example of this was the difference in how the US and UK patient advocacy groups approached actors in the policy and development portions of a system/network around genetic testing, the BRCA gene technology, in the Parthasarathy work. The US groups like the NBCC and BCA felt they were more knowledgeable than the average patient and wanted to limit access to and use of the BRCA testing. In the UK the GIG felt that increased access was in order. These groups sprung up from volunteers who coalesced into a formal advocacy group. The US healthcare system differed from the UK healthcare system in that the US version is/was dominated by private medical research and insurance companies and the patient groups generally do/did not trust that these companies would have the patient’s interest ahead of profits. The UK system is primarily a government run medical system and is more trusted by the patient groups. This is how the article explains the difference in approach.

Comparison with Other Readings

The idea around community or group representation does not seem to be in the Cowan article, Consumption Junction. She certainly advocates for putting the user at the center of the network with ever-widening concentric rings showing different provider groups. The center is the user or type of user in the household domain, then out to retail suppliers of the finished product, then wholesaler, producers and governmental regions. There are groups that are supposed to represent the user, for example a government agency is supposed to somehow be mindful of the consumer needs, as are the retailers, but she does not focus on the users themselves forming any sort of formal group to either co-identify, or to speak on behalf of the user community. Her model allows for such a group in terms of an option to place them onto one of the network diagrams, but she doesn’t focus on how such a group might influence, or be influenced by, the other actors in the user-centric network.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The Users book and the Cowan article seek to define the network of technology creation from the perspective of technology consumption. I really like this approach in that creators of technology will either ultimately consider if and how their technology is used or they will fail. Many do consider this, but get caught in a trap of considering the user at the beginning of development then stop once the technology is “publicized”. That said, in the case of the TRS-80 the technology was preserved and shaped by the users even through the company didn’t do much with it, and eventually discontinued the line. None the less, Tandy did eventually fail with the TRS-80 if their goal was about gaining a large user base and continuing sales.

Most of the articles admit that every user is different, but then still make efforts to categorize both users and non-users. For example Wyatt puts non-users into groups with titles: Resistors, Rejecters, Excluded, Expelled. These ideas about grouped non-users are helpful, but it doesn’t allow for those who may move from category to category, or are in more than one category at the same time. Wyatt does speak of non-users who are former users (Rejecters and Expelled). She also speaks about non-users ability to become future users. Each of these groupings implies some sort of knowledge by the non-users about the existence of the technology. If they never even knew a technology existed, could they be in one of these non-user groups? Would we have to create another non-user groups called “Unaware”?

Aside from students of STS, I would think the works would appeal to policy makers, advocates, technology designers, technology planners and historians. I could see interest in those who also look into behavioral economics. It’s an interesting field where researchers try to understand how people make every day decisions, including how they spend their money.
​