🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
 (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
> Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
> the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
>[...]

in response to my earlier comment:
>>[...]                                          In this work, Winograd
>>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
>>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
>>communicate.
The short answer: Yes.  In my edition it is on page 11: "This synthesis is
central to our interpretation of computer technology in the second part of
the book.  It leads us to the conclusion that we create our world through
language, an observation that has important consequences for design."
 [copied without permission]

Let me explain my interpretation, in response to Hugh LaMaster's
subsequent brick question:
>[...]                                                       Edward
>Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
>their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
>the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective,
>brick?

Sure bricks are physical things and they hurt when they hit your head.
Is the brick in Abbey's test 'real' and 'objective'?  That's harder;
I see the test as the communication of an idea.  The fact that you
and I probably have a similar 'understanding' of what a 'brick' is
gives us a similar 'understanding' of the statement.  The fact that
we assume that the person on the receiving end is not facing the
wrong way---or blind---helps too.

The statement contains a large number of implications.  For example;
there are implications that the reciever knows the object is
aimed at them, that they will be affected by this knowledge, that
the affect will be to induce them to duck, that they are not lying
down or strapped to a wall and so on.  You and I don't have to worry
about such implications, they emerge only when there is some kind
of breakdown.  How many times have you heard statements like: "It's a
joke, Henry. You see, if...".  These statements are used to help
resolve breakdowns.

Maybe my interpretation of brick comes more from the statement
'drop a brick', than from my knowledge of building materials.  At
the same time, I don't know what a 'Solipsism' is but I know that
Abbey spent a lot of time somewhere where people duck (bow) all the
time, especially when embarrassed by indescreet remarks.  Thus, I can
form an understanding of the statement (even if it sounds a little
wierd) and go merrily on my ('wrong') way. ['Drop a brick' means make
an indiscreet remark]

When expressed to a different culture, it may not be a 'brick' which is
thrown but a 'stick' which is thrust.  It doesn't change the test
changing the brick to a stick but I'd like to see someone change a
building brick to a long, thin piece of wood.

I feel that awareness of some of these issues of interpretation will be
fundamental to the design of effective distributed groupware.  Maybe they
lend support to the idea of a 'minimal' use of technology, where we still
bring people to the same place.  My feeling, however, is that there are a
lot of methods of supporting 'one-place' group work which do not rely on
any technology.  What I want is a way of working with you without having
to fly to the states but I want to see the breakdowns when they happen,
not to have them obscured by the system.

Martin Leadbeater            E-mail: Martin.Leadbeater@edgar.sait.edu.au
Academic Computing Service
SA Institute of Technology                        Phone:   +61 8 3433435
The Levels, SA, 5095, Australia                   Fax:     +61 8 3496939