To see or not to see
“If something was not observable then it was not verifiable and if it was not verifiable then it was metaphysical and meaningless” This is stated in chapter 1 of the book Planning Theory by Philip Allmendinger to illustrate the views of logical positivism. Is this statement really true? The statement seems to speak the truth at first glance, but under closer scrutiny it becomes less solid. Let’s focus on one of the most important branches in social science: communication. We communicate everyday through different ways and in different forms. You might wake up tomorrow deciding on following the rules of COVID-19 quarantine and staying at home, so you spend the whole day on social media platforms communicating to a friend or writing a post on Facebook. Alternatively, you might decide to serve the community and volunteer as a babysitter for healthcare workers. These kinds of activities are all forms of communication in daily life, but some may be easier to observe than others.
For example, we communicate via social media platforms. Our thoughts are expressed through texting. The amount of texts and social media posts can be measured, social media platforms are infamous for gathering that data. Up until now, it has not been possible to read your thoughts. However, you can now find Facebook developing a technique called “Silent speech interface”. This technique can enable your laptop or computer to communicate directly with your brain, without you trying to express what is inside your mind.
Another example can be found in disability, which can range from losing control over a small part of the body, to losing total control over every single inch. This is known as Locked-in syndrome. Imagine a person with this syndrome who has feelings to share, thoughts to express but cannot. One of many solutions to solve this communication problem is a device that measures the feelings and locked-in thoughts through the eyes via a camera and translates these through an audio device.
These examples and others are evidence of a coming paradigm shift in the understanding of communication. In the past, it was not possible to measure these forms of communication, even though they did exist. The only limitations are the instruments that we use to observe. A man born blind has never seen light, but whether or not it exists is a matter of perspective.
What do you all think about the advances in communication on different social media platforms? (such as our Facebook example) What about the importance of observable materiality versus virtual? What may be risks and opportunities that present themselves in the paradigm shift in understanding communication? We'd love to see your discussions in the comments sections.
We, Group 9, agree with your notion that more types of communication are now observable, but we are of the opinion that communication being more or less observable doesn’t make it more or less meaningful. So we also have our doubts about the views of logical positivism.
ReplyDeleteWe had never heard about this silent speech interface before, it was very nice to read about this! With every new technology new challenges arise and we were also wondering about the privacy implications as thoughts are very personal. Also we think: ‘you are not your thoughts’ so what one might normally think may not be what one wishes to communicate or act upon. We feel that observable materiality is similar to virtual as we don’t see virtual information as something abstract, in fact the virtual aspect of social media is something that greatly increases its observability. For example, when one of us is looking at a tree and posts this on Instagram, it increases the observability of the tree by our virtual followers.
An opportunity of this paradigm shift might be the researchability as data collection could become easier as the conversation is in the program already.
A risk would be possible increased inequality by excluding certain groups that don’t have access to the latest innovations in modern communication. Also new technologies may have unforeseen negative consequences.
Group 10 (Part 1/3)
ReplyDeleteWe think advances in communication on different social media platforms may have benefits as well as unintended (negative) consequences. Taking Facebook as an example, a benefit may be its Silent Speech Interface as it provides disabled people with additional means for communication; an unintended consequence could be an attention deficit its users may (not) be aware of.
The attention-deficit may require some more explanation. Facebook facilitates communication on its platform by making the creation, curation, and sharing of content on its platform increasingly efficient and repeatable. It does this by developing and enhancing “production” and “consumption mechanisms for senders and receivers, like Silent Speech Interface and personalized filters that show relevant messages, respectively. Accordingly, a tsunami of content is generated on and presented in an increasingly attractive fashion, to be “consumed” by people who have limited attention. When someone seeks to process the abundance of content but can’t due to the limited attention this person has, an attention deficit arises which can lead to risk aversion, mistrust, and fear. For more information on the attention deficit, see “The Attention Deficit - Unintended Consequences of Digital Connectivity” by Swati Bhatt.
We’d like to touch upon the question about the importance of observable materiality versus virtual. Finally, we propose an alternative question: is observability required for meaningfulness?
Group 10 (Part 2/3)
ReplyDeletePossibly, we misinterpret the question, since to us it seems incomplete. The question in its current form asks about the importance of observable materiality vs virtual. Virtual, however, is an abstract theoretical concept and not as concrete as observable materiality. So, we think what is meant by that question is to ask our opinion about the importance of observable materiality vs virtual materiality. To us, observable materiality is not necessarily in contrast to virtual materiality. To add to that, we think virtual materiality in itself can be observable, although not directly.
Building on the example of Facebook’s Silent Speech Interface for people (with the Locked-In syndrome), observable material(ity), we presume, could be the movement of one’s eyes. These movements are translated by the Silent Speech Interface algorithm into an audio message that then exists virtually on the platform, which is a digital ecosystem or space. One could argue that a virtual [message] can be observed readily yet not understood until it contemporarily materializes in such a way – e.g. by appearing in a picture on a screen – that it can be interpreted by a receiver like a Facebook user. Interestingly, a Facebook user’s perception of this message could, again, be a translation of the observable material (photons) into virtual content (subjective experience), that what is consciously perceived. To clarify, besides eyes as the instrument to observe, heuristics contribute to the photons being translated into subjective experience in consciousness, one of a picture that may include depth, involve emotion. Eventually, virtual materiality is observable to us, yet only after it is coded and translated to something that we can interpret. We, therefore, think that it is not a question about the importance of observable materiality vs “virtual materiality” but more about the transition of virtual materiality in something that is observable to us.
Group 10 (Part 3/3)
ReplyDeleteNot all things that have meaning are verifiable and not everything that is verifiable has meaning. Music is not good depending based on any kind of data but rather on the subjectivity of its listener. Communication is a similar concept. The same exact sentences spoken in the same tone by the same speaker might be interpreted differently by different receivers of the message. We think there is too much of a focus on making things “verifiable and objective” which in turn should result in “objective truth” in general in life but especially in communication. We thought it was an interesting example about the man who can not see and therefore to him light might not exist. Who are we to say that putting value to certain things in communication is the correct thing to put value on? There might be many things that influence our current decision making that we are yet unaware of. We think focussing on how to make everything observable or measurable is taking away attention from our imagination and interpretation and the inherent value things have. We understand that measuring and verifying in the case of Facebook is of great importance since they have to justify expenses revenues and profits.
To conclude we would like to say that observability, objectivity and measurability in science have their function and value, but we think there should be space reserved for unverified theories and discussion of ideas that can actually have meaning.
Interesting quote to start with, but in order for it to fully make sense for the reader, it might need a few more words to describe how this is interpreted within logical positivism, and that (and why) you plan to take that quote out of context and (try to) apply it to social sciences. In the closing of the blog there is this really important remark about the use of instruments. This could definitely be linked to the chapter of Allmendinger, and elaborated on as such, to make a stronger connection with literature/theory. Also, the sound of your blog would be louder, if you’d bring home the opening statement that you start with (kind of, repeat it at the end). For it is a bit hard for the reader to understand what your view upon the relation between observability and ‘meaningfulness’ is, in the end. Some really nice and interesting questions you raise, though! And an intriguing topic, that your blog considers, and convincingly puts on agendas.
ReplyDelete