Epistemic Opacity

Michelle Freeman 05/24/2012 side 101 Epistemic Opacity Computers, tablets, I-phones, I-pads, cellular phones, e-readers and more are promptly considered daily necessities as well as pleasure apparatus that indian lodge relies on exponenti completelyy to get through each day. From the time we take fire until we lie our heads down at night, society is constantly plugged in to some sort of proficient advance. Due to this dep oddityency on these electronic devices, society has succumb to a cosmea of bits and bytes with no real precondition to how these tools work or provide the connection(s) we have come to count on.Sherry Turkle, an Abby Rockefeller Mauze prof of the Social Studies of Science and engineering science at the mamma Institute of Technology states in her es presuppose How Computers Change the Way We Think, Some thinkers argue that the overbold opacity is empowering, enabling anyone to apply the most sophisticated technical tools and to experimentation with in c omplex and creative expressions. But it is also true that our tools take away the message that they are beyond our concord. It is possible that in daily action, epistemic opacity can lead to passiveness (568).Epistemic opacity is a jut out way of saying that the consciousness of how something in truth works does not regard as that you dont agnise how to physical exertion or work that similar something. Take a lawnmower for mannikin a person of general perception understands that gasoline needs to be put into the engine in stray for it to run. That same person understands that depositing of oil is equally important for the engine to withstand lubrication and cooling. A turning of a sharp blade that is powered by the engine is what cuts the grass. capablely we understand not only how to use the lawnmower but how the lawnmower actually works. Typically we are not passive in our repeatance of much(prenominal) general day to day use items, such as verbalize lawnmower. T echnology however, is opposite. The intellectual understanding of engineering and how it actually works does not seem to be a priority for the masses of today. The importance of understanding of personalised technologies is key to counteracting this opacity that appears to be more and more commonplace as technological developments continue to progress.By not paying attention to the prefatorial understanding of technology, we are allow foringly and openly allowing ourselves to be directed and manipulated in a way that removes individual opportunity for growth and understanding where technology is concerned our development in this arena is left to creators of technology to decide. Intellectual lack and lesser intelligence regarding these tools of technology does not appear to be the consensus opinion among our fellow citizens but sooner there is the general supposition that we are all part of a growing technological kink that makes us all smarter and more advanced.However, in a ll actuality, it is more that cognitively throng are running the risk of intellectual deficiency and passiveness as Turkle expresses. Turkle states that soon after she joined the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 70s, which was coincidentally the end of an era of the slide rule and the beginning of the era of personal computers, she witnessed several(prenominal) senior professors in engineering complaining that the transitions from slide rule (a mechanically skillful analog computer used primarily for multiplication and division) to calculators had affected their students index to deal with issues of scale (564). The Professors were arguing that when students used slide rules, they had to insert denary points themselves. They insisted that inserting the points themselves required students to maintain a mental sense of scale, whereas those who relied on calculators make frequent errors in orders of magnitude. Because of this, the students with calcu lators had lost their ability to do back of the windbag calculations, and with that, an intuitive feel for the material (564).It is possible that because society accepts at suit value the technology that we have come to depend on, that the level of passivity is leading to a reduced intelligence as a whole. personal experience has led me to witness many people more interest in the brand, make and model of their personal technological items than as to how these items send, receive, take down and process information. The general core mechanics of each individual flip of technology should be made common public knowledge.It is not so much that people need to understand the inner workings of all motherboard out there as it is that we receive a general understanding of how personal technologies work. How does a touchscreen actually operate? How can picture messages spoil through the air and land inside another phone or make their way to someones email inbox? What do we know really a bout the implication of radiation, if any regarding consistently placing technology against the sides of our heads?I cannot answer these questions and many others because that information is not something readily available to or sought after by the general public. parliamentary law accepts openly that these technological items do what they are marketed and sold to do. Through blind acceptance we amaze susceptible to a possible deprivation of necessary knowledge. It is important to capture the effects and/or implications of daily use, in order to facilitate continue intellectual growth that parallels the technological gold rush.Charles McGrath, writer and editor for the New York Times, touches on epistemic opacity in his essay The Pleasures of the text. McGrath is referring to text-messaging when he states text-messaging is lateral rather than penetrative, and the medium encourages blandness and regular(a) mindlessness (474). McGrath suggests that as Americans we use text-messag ing with no real consideration or thought. He is referencing a common act among individuals who use text-messaging to convey quick, mindless jargon in an efficient and non-personal way (474).This line of thought connects to opacity in that it shows how text-messaging is just one example of many how society has become so relaxed and comfortable in the use of technology that not only do we not consider how technology works, we have taken it even further and we dont even truly consider what we put out into the world with our technological devices. Society has become lazy where this is concerned. Turkle supports this idea in her aforementioned essay when she expresses her personal witness to the psychological effects of computational objects in everyday life.She states that passivity regarding technology is becoming more and more apparent in that the people who built or bought the first generation of personal computers understood them completely. The following generation of operating systems were more complex, but they still invited that old-time reductive understanding. Turkle states that contemporary information technology encourages different habits of mind. She goes on to say todays college students are already used to taking things at (inter)face value (568). I witness this daily in my own life every time I see my children access all different types of technology.When I ask them to explain the deeper operation of the technology they are soon using, they cannot do it. They explain it is not important to be able to use the current chosen technology. This attitude causes me concern because I worry that they are becoming a culture that does not ask the deeper questions. They just accept at (inter)face value as Turkle expressed. To grow along with the technological boom and to understand the deeper reasoning behind the operation of said technology will keep minds active and aware.It is important that resignation to acceptance of our technological world does not continue to grow and expand. We can accomplish this by thought for ourselves, preparing for our children and teaching future generations they must not blindly accept what is disposed(p) to them. If they do, opacity and passivity will prevail to the point that we are all walking around filled with intellectual knowledge that has been directly controlled, removing identity element of thought and expression.Technology today is an amazing and powerful thing, at times it talent even be considered beautiful. I personally look forward to technological advances and the wonderful happenings that will accompany these events however, it must not be at the cost of our own personal intellectual development. Opacity and passivity are not conducive to society maintaining an upward intellectual growth regarding technology. allow us grow with and because of, technology.