re black box
i can't quite agree with your strong claim,
terry,
that "we can only progress on sound foundations if we look inside the 'black
box'."
the question is what you accept as knowledge. if you want to know how
something is constructed, have a representation of the actual mechanism that
underlies a system, then, of course you are right. but this is not the only
kind of knowing one is interested in.
the idea of a black box leads to modeling theory, to developing a model of
something that may have a very different materiality, makes no claim that it
represents the mechanism underlying the modeled phenomenon but enables
prediction and control.
reverse engineering is a more recent example of applying a black box
approach. computer modeling (i mean a computer that develops a model of the
world based on how it interacts with it) is rooted in black box thinking.
cosmologists are basically saying that we have no idea of how the universe
works, who constructed it, and why it does what it does. we cannot open up
the universe the way we can take a camera apart, except to observe its
behavior and develop all kinds of model of it that are merely useful for
what we want to do without ever going inside the black box of the cosmos.
when we are successfully sending a space probe around, this confirms that
our models work for us, but not necessarily for other intelligences that do
things differently
there is nothing wrong with modeling a black box but to claims that a model
would give you insights about what is inside the box. this is the
fundamental mistake that some cognitive scientists make when claiming that
they could say something about how the human brain works. i have never
heard of a cognitive scientist opening up a brain to see how it works (it
would destroy it anyway). the knowledge that cognitive science gathers has
more to do with the attitudes of the scientists than with how the brain does
what it does. and you are right in saying that we are mostly mistaken in
claiming to know how we know we know.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Terence Love
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Black Boxes
Ranulph,
Thanks for the info on the 'black box' concept. I was using it in exactly
that sense to refer not just to behaviourist perspectives.
All models and theories of cognition, mentation, design, creativity,
knowledge making and use, judgement etc suffer from all the problems of the
'black box' phenomena unless they look inside the box. This also applies to
subjective reflection - we, as individuals, have very little insight into
the 'black box ' of human beingness through our own thoughts and feelings -
demonstrably inconsistent, flawed and faulty. Awareness of thought and
feeling only gives the illusion we know how we function and how we
decide/create things- humbling- something similar to seeing the colour of a
car and looking out its windows as it goes along then presuming from that
that we know how the engine works.
As far as I can see, for all these areas of study - especially design- we
can only progress on sound foundations if we look inside the 'black box' of
human functioning.
All the best,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love
Curtin Research Fellow
Design-focused Research Group
Dept of Design, Curtin University
PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Tel/Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office)
+61 (0)8 9266 4018 (university office)
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Visiting Research Fellow
Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University
Lancaster, UK
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Conselho Cientifico
UNIDCOM
IADE, Lisboa
Portugal
____________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Ranulph Glanville
Sent: 11/02/2005 6:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Black Boxes
I think I need to interject about Black Boxes. I know it's not quite
central to the discussion, but Terry brought it up, and I think that a
deep understanding of Black Boxes can help as a way of imagining what
goes on in the mystery that is design, not that this is the time to go
into that matter.
Terry is right in connecting Black Boxes and externalist views, if
thinking of Behaviourism etc. But I don't think this view has been
sustainable for around 30 years. The point is that the Black Box is an
invention: you can never know what's in it and the "knowledge" you
produce by using it is always provisional and is a result of an
interaction between this strange and empty construction and you, the
observer. The notion that you can get inside the Box, that you can
therefore expose the mechanism of behaviour, is a consequence of not
thinking out the notion of the Black Box. It's not terribly surprising:
it usually takes us a long time to worm our ways into ideas which often
turn out to be other than we thought they were! In fact, the supposed
origin of the Black Box (James Clerk Maxwell) seems to be as mysterious
and the Black Box itself: not even experts in Maxwell seem able to find
it. I've asked many.
Ranulph
|