To fulfill this assignment, you had to start off by rereading Nye's passages that the source is embedded in. You have to gain a feel for what he is trying to convey. Then you have to think about how he used his source, was he agreeing with it or was he not? Was he just using it as an example? There are many different reasons to use a source. Then you have to read the source itself. Instead of just reading it flat out like I normally would, I tried to read it through Nye's perspective. This way I feel I better understood what Nye was thinking when he used this source. Then I would reread the source in my own perspective and compare the two. I tried to be very unbiased so that my account was accurate. I think the main thing here is to be able to separate the different perspectives.
The online peer editing was great. I think the most useful comments are ones who just keep asking you question after question because then it helps your mind get on the same page as theirs. It also helps your flow of thought. It doesnt really help when someone says "oh i love your intro but you need to work on the body." Though its nice to hear the good things about your paper, I think the questions and even constructive criticsms are more important.
From the sources that Nye used that I had encountered I think he used them pretty fairly. But I do think that he mostly chose sources that also agreed with him. So I think that he may be kind of biased, but he didn't seem to manipulate the sources. I think it would have been interesting if he included sources that disagreed with him. I think that I may have the same problem as Nye, using sources that I agree with. Because its fun to read something and be like "wow, they are saying just what I am saying!" It kind of excites you and makes you want to read more and even gives you more thoughts of your own to expand on. Whereas when you are reading an opposing view, your bias comes into play and you just want to argue and sometimes thats not fun anymore.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
A Look at Sources (Assign 5)
In Technology Matters, David Nye discusses tool use and humans. He says that tool use is not unique to humans, but intelligent apes use tools too. Nye says, “Technologies are not foreign to “human nature” but inseparable from it” (Technology Matters, p. 2). We have evolved to use tools. We have opposable thumbs which give us a precision grasp, which helps us grasp tools. Nye believes that technology is not for basic needs but for social reasons. In chapter one Nye uses Beniger’s The Control Revolution as a source. In Beniger’s book he shows that he believes technology is any extension of a natural process. He uses the example of human breathing underwater as a technology. He argues the human brain is a technology because it probably developed because of the interaction with tools (The Control Revolution, p. 9). In the Notes section of Nye’s book he writes, “2. I will not try to make this argument, but some scholars contend that the brain developed in interaction with tool use and therefore should be considered a human technology. See e.g. Beniger 1986, p. 9”. Nye clearly states that he will not make this same argument that Beniger does. I think Nye decided to leave this part out because he doesn’t completely agree with it. I think Nye uses this passage because of Beniger’s definition of technology and agrees with parts of it. Beniger talking about human abilities as technology probably made Nye think of evolution and our opposable thumbs. I don’t think that Nye completely agrees with Beniger but used his work because it gave him ideas that he probably didn’t have before reading Benigers work. However, Nye does touch base on the brain developing and having an enlarged human cortex. I think Nye’s discussion could have included Beniger’s idea of human technologies even if he doesn’t agree with it. I think here that some of the stakeholders would be the scientific community but not all of them because some do not agree with what Nye is saying. They are left out because he doesn’t include the brain as a technology.
In chapter nine of Technology Matters, David Nye talks about how we use technology to protect us. We have made many improvements and have kept people and cities safer. Our whole world, for the most part, relies on these technologies to keep us safe. For example, at night we sleep comfortably in our beds knowing that the alarm system will go off if there is an intruder. What happens if something came unplugged and the alarm system was off without you realizing, you are then vulnerable without you even knowing it. Sometimes technology fails us. Nye says that nowadays when something goes wrong it is no longer thought of as an act of God but because of technology and the people running it. The more advanced it is the more catastrophic it can be, a chain reaction can happen (Technology Matters, p. 161-162). In this chapter Nye uses an example form Chiles book entitled Inviting Disasters. Chiles believes that we are too focused on technology, he says, “We have been hard at work for more than two centuries now, building a world out of cold iron that is very far from our ancient instincts and traditions, and becoming more so” (Inviting Disasters, p. 2). We are so focuses on technology that sometimes we don’t see the bigger picture. All of these technologies have high consequences. We rely on technology too much when it can be faulty, Chiles writes, “A lot of us are offering our lives these days to machines and their operators, about which we know very little except that occasionally things go shockingly wrong” (Inviting Disasters, p. 6). We don’t have the knowledge but we go along with it anyways and put our lives in technologies hands, thus giving technology the control. I think that Chiles wants people to realize that normal little mistakes can do major damage when it comes to technology. He shows how one little thing can escalade to a big disaster with the example of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams. There was heavy rainfall in China and problems with dams which lead to dams failing which lead to more water flowing to lower dams that also failed, totaling 62 dams and deaths at 26,000+ (Inviting Disasters, p. 303). Which leads me to Nye; he also used this example from Chiles’ book. I think Nye used Chiles as a source because he agrees with him. They are both arguing the same thing. I don’t think that Nye left anything out because he is just using the same example and does not go into much detail of what Chiles thoughts are. I think in Inviting Disasters, he brings us some interesting points in his introduction that Nye could have also used to further his discussion on technology’s security or danger. I think that some of the steakholders here are the human population in general that are exposed to these disasters and the government too. Engineers are stakeholders that are not really addressed.
I think that Chiles brought us so many things that I would like to include in my final research paper. I want to continue my topic of control, does technology have the control? In Chiles’ introduction to Inviting Disasters he brings up many solid points that I have not considered before. For example he says, “While the human race remains the same genetically as it was many millennia ago, our technological world careens ahead daily” (Inviting Disasters, p. 4). I thought this was very interesting, in my previous papers I have touched base on the role knowledge plays in the control factor. But I never thought about how humans are genetically the same as they have been for many years, which also got me to thinking how advanced technology is compared to us. Yes, humans have created the technology but few of them have the knowledge. The average human is not equipped with this knowledge which gives the technology that is so far advanced the control. Also he talks about how we offer our lives up to machines, we rely on these machines, and we trust these machines even when they cause huge disasters. We continue to trust them even when they have wronged us. Why is this? We keep running back them after they have hurt us. I can’t help but think of all the women in the world who have been battered by their husbands or all the children who have been hit by their parents but every time (not always) they go back to them, they love them anyways. Why do we do this to ourselves? There have been women and children who have taken a stand and walked away, will we as a society ever do this? Will we walk away from technology? When will we have had enough?
In chapter nine of Technology Matters, David Nye talks about how we use technology to protect us. We have made many improvements and have kept people and cities safer. Our whole world, for the most part, relies on these technologies to keep us safe. For example, at night we sleep comfortably in our beds knowing that the alarm system will go off if there is an intruder. What happens if something came unplugged and the alarm system was off without you realizing, you are then vulnerable without you even knowing it. Sometimes technology fails us. Nye says that nowadays when something goes wrong it is no longer thought of as an act of God but because of technology and the people running it. The more advanced it is the more catastrophic it can be, a chain reaction can happen (Technology Matters, p. 161-162). In this chapter Nye uses an example form Chiles book entitled Inviting Disasters. Chiles believes that we are too focused on technology, he says, “We have been hard at work for more than two centuries now, building a world out of cold iron that is very far from our ancient instincts and traditions, and becoming more so” (Inviting Disasters, p. 2). We are so focuses on technology that sometimes we don’t see the bigger picture. All of these technologies have high consequences. We rely on technology too much when it can be faulty, Chiles writes, “A lot of us are offering our lives these days to machines and their operators, about which we know very little except that occasionally things go shockingly wrong” (Inviting Disasters, p. 6). We don’t have the knowledge but we go along with it anyways and put our lives in technologies hands, thus giving technology the control. I think that Chiles wants people to realize that normal little mistakes can do major damage when it comes to technology. He shows how one little thing can escalade to a big disaster with the example of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams. There was heavy rainfall in China and problems with dams which lead to dams failing which lead to more water flowing to lower dams that also failed, totaling 62 dams and deaths at 26,000+ (Inviting Disasters, p. 303). Which leads me to Nye; he also used this example from Chiles’ book. I think Nye used Chiles as a source because he agrees with him. They are both arguing the same thing. I don’t think that Nye left anything out because he is just using the same example and does not go into much detail of what Chiles thoughts are. I think in Inviting Disasters, he brings us some interesting points in his introduction that Nye could have also used to further his discussion on technology’s security or danger. I think that some of the steakholders here are the human population in general that are exposed to these disasters and the government too. Engineers are stakeholders that are not really addressed.
I think that Chiles brought us so many things that I would like to include in my final research paper. I want to continue my topic of control, does technology have the control? In Chiles’ introduction to Inviting Disasters he brings up many solid points that I have not considered before. For example he says, “While the human race remains the same genetically as it was many millennia ago, our technological world careens ahead daily” (Inviting Disasters, p. 4). I thought this was very interesting, in my previous papers I have touched base on the role knowledge plays in the control factor. But I never thought about how humans are genetically the same as they have been for many years, which also got me to thinking how advanced technology is compared to us. Yes, humans have created the technology but few of them have the knowledge. The average human is not equipped with this knowledge which gives the technology that is so far advanced the control. Also he talks about how we offer our lives up to machines, we rely on these machines, and we trust these machines even when they cause huge disasters. We continue to trust them even when they have wronged us. Why is this? We keep running back them after they have hurt us. I can’t help but think of all the women in the world who have been battered by their husbands or all the children who have been hit by their parents but every time (not always) they go back to them, they love them anyways. Why do we do this to ourselves? There have been women and children who have taken a stand and walked away, will we as a society ever do this? Will we walk away from technology? When will we have had enough?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Unsure (blog 6)
In Chapter 1, David Nye uses some ideas from James Beniger's The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. He mentions how we have opposable thumbs which made it easier for us to grasp and use tools and how during evolution our brains developed. David Nye's main focus on page 2 is to show how crucial the use of tools is to us. At the end of this paragraph he has given his source as James Beniger. If you follow it to the back of the book to the Notes, you can read the following, "2. I will not try to make this argument, but some scholars contend that the brain developed in interaction with tool use and therefore should be considered a human technology. See e.g. Beinger 1986, p. 9" (Technology Matters, p. 227). This really didnt make sense to me. Page 9 of Beinger's work that David Nye is referring to doesn't really concern David Nye. By that I mean, the same ideas are not really there. I kind of don't really see why Nye would even cite Beinger. Nye clears states in his note that he will not make the argument that the brain is a human technology but that is precisely what Beniger is talking about. I guess I just dont understand why Nye cited Beniger's work when, to me, it doesn't seem like he needed to. Also looking through his Notes, David Nye cites just people who gave him and idea or who inspired an idea of his, is this what we are supposed to do too?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Another Form of the Human Factor (Blog #5)
Kim Vicente has this theme of the human factor which you can also see in David Nye's Technology Matters. David Nye mentions B.A. Turner, who wrote Man-Made Disasters, when discussing how one small thing leads to another which can build up and cause a disaster. He writes, "No single mistake is usually the cause of a disaster, which rather comes about through an unforeseen interaction of several small miscalculations or errors" (Technology Matters, 164). David Nye is saying that there is usually this build up of errors that happens which causes a disaster; it isnt just one wrong flip of the switch. I think that Vicente would agree with this but add on several small "human" miscalculations or errors. David Nye does not seem to be putting a blame on anyone in particular but Kim Vicente does. Vicente has this notion of the human factor which is the problem; the human factor being that the technology may work perfect but if the human running it does not exactly everything they are doing, something can go wrong. Nye somewhat approaches this conclusion with bringing in human intervention but he does not go as far as give the blame to humans. Nye looks at it as more of an "unforeseen interaction of several small miscalculation or errors." However Nye does start to talk about human intervention and how it has caused problems, such as spraying DDT to kill malarial mosquitoes when instead it gave way to a DDT resistant mosquitoe which lead to more outbreaks. In my opinion this is another form of the "human factor" that Vicente is talking about. The intervention of humans has caused these techonologies to become deadly.
Just a thought: On page 167 of Technology Matters, David Nye poses the question, "Do weapons make people safer?" He goes on to talk about owning guns, he says that in countries where you cannot own a gun homicide and accident rates are much lower than in the United States. He really brings it home with, "In states with more guns, more children are dying." This got me thinking, why are we allowed to own guns? Why is it in the Constitution that the second amendment is the right to bear arms? What were our Founding Fathers thinking? Did they foresee this becoming such a problem? Now I understand that there are people who hunt and all that jazz but still this is a huge problem. Too many people die because of guns, or is it just the people that use them, not the guns? If so do you think that if we outlawed guns, we would see more people killing with knives or some other sort of weapon or do you think that we would see homicides and accident rates decrease?
Just a thought: On page 167 of Technology Matters, David Nye poses the question, "Do weapons make people safer?" He goes on to talk about owning guns, he says that in countries where you cannot own a gun homicide and accident rates are much lower than in the United States. He really brings it home with, "In states with more guns, more children are dying." This got me thinking, why are we allowed to own guns? Why is it in the Constitution that the second amendment is the right to bear arms? What were our Founding Fathers thinking? Did they foresee this becoming such a problem? Now I understand that there are people who hunt and all that jazz but still this is a huge problem. Too many people die because of guns, or is it just the people that use them, not the guns? If so do you think that if we outlawed guns, we would see more people killing with knives or some other sort of weapon or do you think that we would see homicides and accident rates decrease?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
