Please respond to the reading as you wish. Please be sure to address the following questions in your answer.
- Orr creates a list of assumptions that he believes "fast knowledge" is built upon. Do you agree with his list? What are his strongest notions... weakest ones?
- Based on your own experiences and that which you can refer to- do you see Orr's position here as accurate? applicable to current issues? (from page 38)"The result is that the system of fast knowledge creates social traps in which the benefits occur in the near term while the costs are deferred to others at a later time."
- Orr creates a list of beliefs that he believes "slow knowledge" is built upon. Do you agree with his list? What are his strongest notions... weakest ones?
- Protagoras was the first to say, "Man is the measure of all things"- here Orr attributes this to "fast knowledge." If not man, then who, or what do you think Orr values as a more effective measuring stick?
- How might this chapter- fast/slow knowledge be applicable to your own designs /to architecture in general?
Due October 14th, 2008
11 comments:
One of the assumptions for fast knowledge is : Wisdom is an undefinable, hence unimportant, category. I found this very odd because for me wisdom and knowledge go hand in hand. Thus I decided to look up the definition of wisdom.
wisdom |ˈwizdəm|
noun
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.
• the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of such experience, knowledge, and good judgment : some questioned the wisdom of building the dam so close to an active volcano.
• the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period : oriental wisdom.
I understand Orr's argument that fast knowledge is very impulsive and is used to fix problems, but I feel that you would need some experience, knowledge and good judgement to do so. I agree more with with Orr's general argument about how the result from fast knowledge is beneficial for the moment than his list of qualities of fast knowledge. A sentence that stood out for me was : "Knowledge of how to kill more efficiently is rushed from research to application without much question about its effects on the perceptions and behavior of others, on our own behavior, or about better and cheaper ways to achieve real security." I thought that it was a good summery of his idea.
I wish that we lived in a society were the majority of people had slow knowledge. It is evident that the society we live in now is more based on fast knowledge because of the economic dilemma we are facing know. I also found it interesting that one of the bullets under slow knowledge was: "Human ignorance is not an entirely solvable problem; it is, rather, an inescapable part of the human condition." I tried to think of a way disprove this theory, but the only thing I could think of was if every person in the world at the same time watched tv screens that taught all of the worlds knowledge. Unfortunately, that is incredibly impractical and people probably would not retain anything.
I feel that these principles definitely apply to architecture. There are many buildings that are built quickly without a lot of thought and end up having major structural problems later, and there are buildings that are well thought out and have survived centuries.
Some of Orr's points on his list of the assumptions of fast knowledge resonated with me and drew questions from me. Firstly, I don't really see what the problem is with his second point, that "the more knowledge we have, the better." Personally, I think the more information (and knowledge) humans can gather about anything can only help us. It is what we choose to do with that knowledge that truly matters. Although I disagree with that point, I completely agree with another of his points--that "the scale of effects of applied knowledge is unimportant" to proponents of fast knowledge. I feel that people often don't think or care about the long term effects as long as those of the short term are satisfactory. I think the idea of thinking more about the long term before we do something ties in with the whole idea of ecological design. I agree with Orr's statement on page 38 that "social traps" are created "in which the benefits occur in the near term while the costs are deferred to others at a later time," although I don't feel it is safe to say fast knowledge alone is responsible. Although slow knowledge seems to be better, I still believe nothing is perfect.
I loved Orr's statement on page 39 that "the aim of slow knowledge is resilience, harmony, and the preservation of patterns that connect." This seems like a good goal to me, not just for slow knowledge but for many things, like ecological design. I also liked his point on the list that "the careless application of knowledge can destroy the conditions that permit knowledge of any kind to flourish" because I find it so true. I think the careless use of or misinterpretation of any kind of knowledge will always have an adverse affect. I also think Orr's point that human ignorance cannot be completely solved is valid. The human race can never know all there is to know or all that we may want to know. It is indeed "an inescapable part of the human condition."
I think Orr's argument in this chapter, about fast vs. slow knowledge, is applicable to ecological design as he has discussed it in preceding chapters. On page 39, Orr says slow knowledge "is shaped and calibrated to fit a particular ecological and cultural context." To me, this statement is analogous to his earlier comments that ecological design should be based on learning about and adapting to nature as it is now, as opposed to forcing nature to adapt to our wills.
--Samantha H.
I think that the weakest point about fast knowledge is that "we are able to retrieve the right bit of knowledge at the right time and fit it into its proper social, ecological, ethical, and economic context." To me, this is an example of slow knowledge. taking situations from the past and applying them to the present to see what the best choice is about the future. i think that all of the other comments are pretty good, and even by reading them i found some that applied to me and that kind of makes me feel guilty. I love fast knowledge: reading a book and learning something new...etc. However in terms of the world and architecture it is not the best approach.
I think that slow knowledge would be helpful in the long term, and it is true that fast knowledge leads to the necessity of more fast knowledge. But in order to implement our slow knowledge we must break that vicious cycle, which is a VERY difficult thing to do. Its like waking up and putting salt into your milk instead of sugar in your coffee: completely switching how we view problem solving. does that analogy makes sense?
The major problem that I have with Orr's concept of slow knowledge is that it is slow. I am a victim of the modern world (as i mentioned earlier) and I don't want to wait around painfully hoping that major problems will be solved eventually. I want action. If there could some way of applying slow thinking quickly, that would be ideal.
in terms of how this applies to architecture, architecture is an easy thing to implement slow knowledge into. Studying and contemplating structures will ultimately make them better and more beautiful.
"Wisdom, not cleverness, is the proper aim of all true learning" I really like that quote.
Nora K
I agree with Orr's list of "fast knowledge" assumptions to a certain extent. I feel like some of his points are vague though. For example, "only that which can be measured is true knowledge" sounds a little too broad and general to me. One assumption that I feel is particularly characteristic of "fast knowledge" is the cooncept of 'new knowledge' being better than 'old knowledge'. In my opinion this is an incorrect assumption that has become prevalent in society.
I was also really intrigued by Orr's concept of a system of fast knowledge leading to predicaments in the future. Taking action before considering future consequences has become all too familiar in recent decades (global warming, Iraq war, economic crisis, the concept of trickle-down economics, etc...)
Orr's list of "slow knowledge beliefs" is interesting but I disagree with some of his assertions. For example, in my opinion it is possible to be clever and wise simultaneously. In fact I think that finding a balance between these two is necessary in finding solutions to problems created by "fast knowledge".
I think that Orr probably considers the earth and the worlds natural resource capacity as a more applicable limit and measuring stick. This chapter as a whole is very applicable to architecture and design in general because it is important to use "slow knowledge" while designing and not be seduced by the ease of "fast knowledge". For example, although it may be "cool and trendy" to build a tall skyscraper out of glass in bermuda, it would be more practical to build small houses with flat white roofs to collect rain water. This an architectural example of fast(skyscraper)vs.slow(house w/ rainroof) knowledge.
-Nick K.
I disagree with the assumption that “only that which can be measured is true knowledge.” (pg. 36) I disagree with this because there is not a test for all different forms of knowledge. A person can be knowledgeable without passing a quantitative exam and the fact that knowledge is not measurable does not make it untrue. David Orr’s strongest notion for fast knowledge is that the more knowledge we have the better we will be. This best supports the case for fast knowledge because more knowledge will never have malevolent effects; it will only cause the person to make a better-supported decision. His weakest notion is that wisdom is indefinable and hence is unimportant.
I agree with Orr’s statement that the effects of fast knowledge are often deferred to a later time. I have not personally had a bad experience with a side effect of a medicine, but when I observe the listed side effects of medicines advertised on the TV I wonder about the long-term effects. So often the iatrogenic effects are more dangerous than the effects the medicine was developed to overcome. I believe this is the result of relying on fast knowledge, because while most medicines are engineered to cure a set of symptoms, but like fast knowledge, they have many iatrogenic effects that follow because they have not been created with the long term effects in mind.
Orr’s belief that what ails humans is not the lack of knowledge, but the presence of too much irrelevant or not used properly knowledge resonates with me. Human beings are the most intelligent beings on the earth, and we have accumulated an immense amount of knowledge. I believe that this knowledge can only be beneficial to us. But if we do not build on it, use it properly or consider this storehouse when it is important do so, then we are misusing our inheritance and are only doing harm to ourselves.
Pythagoras’ statement was the product of fast knowledge, because it’s ideal was probably conceived as a result of our knowledge of the human brain’s capacity and because we have this vast ability; we get blinded by this knowledge and see the entire earth as an object for us to use. Fast knowledge would be more likely to operate from this point of view, whereas slow knowledge would start with the consideration of man as one part of the earth’s many systems and look at how it fits in. Fast knowledge would rather see how humans can exploit the resources given to them on planet earth.
Fast/slow knowledge would applicable in the following way. We would use slow knowledge to consider how to plug in the information we learned from fast knowledge. Slow knowledge would help the architectural designer see what types of structures have worked in the past and what parts of their designs were more beneficial than others. This would work hand in hand with fast knowledge because fast knowledge would help modernize and also give us the materials and systems to bring the design to life.
Dyllon Gibbs
(Nike Sneaker Chair DG edition coming Fall 08…GET EXCITED)
I agree with Orr's classification and assessment of fast knowledge. I think that it is accurate. Orr, however, like I do, does not agree fundamentally with the concept of fast knowledge. It is not the right way to live. Orr's comparison between fast and slow knowledge is right on. There are no strong or weak elements to each list -- the divide comes simply from the fast knowledge list being mostly misguided views on the human state, and the slow knowledge list being much more accurate. Orr, as well as myself, values the state of the world as a more accurate measuring stick than Protagoras. This chapter definitely makes it clear that one should not get ahead of oneself. It continues on to say that everyone has already done this -- and then begs the question, "why?" I especially like the quote by Wendell Berry, describing how delusional we are to believe "that we can first set demons at large, and then, somehow, become smart enough to control them."
Sorry I forgot to sign the post I just made. Steve H
I agree with Forrest about wisdom. Knowledge is useless, and actually very dangerous, without wisdom. I would define wisdom as knowing how to use knowledge, and without it, things can end up badly. For example, Einstein said that if he were a wiser man, he would have never created his famous equation because he would have realized it would lead to the atomic bomb, and he never got over this.
Orr's main problem in his argument is that the right answer lies in the middle ground between fast and slow knowledge. If you rely solely on slow knowledge, sure, you might not make many mistakes or careless decisions, but you will not progress nearly fast enough and will eventually be wiped out. If you rely solely on fast knowledge, the you run the risk of making fatal errors that will end everything. Somewhere between lies a balance of taking risks and moving rashly when it's needed, but always thinking of the repercussions before you do. I believe this is the path to follow.
Hopefully, the problem with fast knowledge that Orr mentions (that it solves the near-term with no regard for the far-term) will not be applicable to the present financial crisis. Something that this reminds me of, however, is the major car companies during the 60's and 70's when the first ideas of electric cars were milling around. All of the major manufacturers decided to brush this technology aside in favor of not having to spend all the money now and all of the near-term profit from sticking with gasoline, and didn't think of what was to come. Now, because of it, two of the nation's oldest car manufacturers (Chrysler and GM, I think) are probably going to go out of business. I think that this is a pretty sad byproduct of fast knowledge (at least for me).
I agree with Orr on the thought that Human's biggest problem is that we have way to much knowledge and not enough wisdom on how to use it. Our technology and understanding is increasing at an exponential pace, and, hopefully, our carelessness with this technology will lessen. I think that the atomic bomb is a perfect example of when this got out of hand. We knew how to make the bomb, so did, but did not understand the fallout that would occur. Because of this, thousands got radiation poising from the nuclear tests.
I think that this chapter is applicable to architecture in the sense that there are always new technologies and designs coming about, and everyone is always very eager to use them, but new doesn't always mean right. Sometimes, the best solution is a classic one that has been around since Roman times. Sure, you could support that beam with kevlar-reinforced carbon nanotubes, or suspend that bridge using an antigravity device, but, sometimes, the best answer is an arch.
-Jordan F
David Orr's makes a distinction between fast, slow, new, and old knowledge. But in my opinion, all forms of erudition are the same, which lead to obtaning wisdom.
Eventhough, Orr makes a distinction between between forms of knowledge, i agree with Orr's description of fast knowledge because it describes the essence of human nature. Meaning, fast knowledge is prevealent because it what times have called for. For example, if society has a calling for a brilliant scientist to contruct the next Penn Station buildind they will be employed based on their credentials(Sat scores and the college(s) they attended) In our society, employers focus on the most obvious candidate-the "best of the best".
With that in mind, I disagree with the Orr's description of old knowledge. Without, old knowledge we would not be able to concieve any newer knowledge. For example, If the technology to invent explosives(which have deadly and unpredictable effects on communities), then we would not be able to make advances to the technology of explosives. Without the erudition of "old knowledge" the U.S. government would not be able to create more advanced explosives that can reduce casualties. Lastly, i want to argue against Orr's point- " Only that which can be measured is true knowledged"(36) This point struck me as being odd because their are hundreds of thousands of people that can exhibit their knowledge in a multitude of ways. For example, savants won't have the best SAT or ACT, but thier minds undergo a unique series of events that exhibit their superior knowledge of any "genius" with a flawless SAT score.
"wisdom is an undefinable, hence unimportant, category. This statement is inefficacious because wisdom shows that you've mastered you're art form. For example, if i was faced with the decision to choose between a book-smart architect or an architect with wisdom in architecture, i would personally choose the architect with experience and wisdom. While a book-smart architect is surely able to construct a sturdy structure, i would choose the architect who considers placement, wind speed, and the buildings five O'clock shadow.
Eventhough, i have denounced many aspects of Orr's decription of knowledge I've found the reading, in its entirety, very interesting i'm looking forward to future Orr readings.
Jo-Sar A.D-D.
(Atom Table Creator)
I agree with Samantha, and I think the more knowledge we have the better. But I also agree with Orr's statement that people don't look into the implications of their decisions about the newly acquired knowledge or ability. I don't think fast knowledge can ever be stopped. Maybe if the whole world system started over. I liked that Orr gave specific ways to address the problem to a specific group (universities). Even though most people in universities are a new generation, the idea might not catch on. Fast knowledge provides many economic opportunities and can make many people very rich. Fast knowledge creates new products, and even though those products might create problems, that just opens a space in the market for other products to fix those problems
-liaa
In this chapter, Orr makes assumptions that I think are quite detrimental to his argument, one of which is the position that fast knowledge is worse then slow knowledge most of the time. As I understood it, fast knowledge is basically modern advances, some of which we all, including Orr, take for granted. Some of these key advances are mostly medicinal which have led to higher successful birth rates, no epidemics that kill millions of people, at least in developed countries and so on. Without these advances, most of us would not be alive.
The beliefs that he thinks that our culture of fast knowledge are both right and wrong. They are right in the ways that we believe that by learning more we can solve all of our problems and we are always right in learning more. However, he makes a fundamental assumption that, in my opinion, is totally incorrect. He assumes that just because knowledge is extremely important to us, our wealth as a developed nation is built upon the transfer of information, this means that our culture and wisdom from previous eras are not important to us. This assumption is wrong, because if it were true, we would not read Shakespeare, we would not use the Socratic method and we would not try as hard as we do to restore and preserve old buildings, sculptures and symbols of our culture.
However, this idea that we as a culture act without thinking and leave the consequences for people after us is unfortunately true. If we had known what we know now about the environment and the burning of fossil fuels, for example, we would have been more reluctant to utilize them for energy. Unfortunately, it is only with the technology we have, largely to the utilization of the fossil fuels that we can look back and see how much damage it can/is causing. Now it is left up to current generations to clean up the mess that started around the industrial revolution, and with our small amount of knowledge, it is likely that we will leave or contribute our own mess for future generations to pick up.
As for his opinions on slow knowledge, I believe that Orr is correct, for the most part, that slow knowledge is safer then fast knowledge. Because it has been developed slowly, we are more likely to have a better understanding of the problems in this logic then we do when everything is happening as rapidly as it is now. The problem is, that slow knowledge is not as much of a brilliant solution as Orr believes it to be. The fundamental problem lies not only with our logic, but also with our nature. It is through our cognitive abilities that we see everything as something to be utilized and used to our advantage, and I do not believe that this will change, regardless of whether we think for a long or short period of time about this.
I think that what Orr values as a more effective measuring stick is by how much we affect the environment, rather then what we as people do. The problem with this measuring stick, is that from the very beginning, we have done things that have damaged our environment. Before the modern era, we have hunted plant and animal species into extinction, and that is unlikely to change because we are predators. The problem has gotten worse recently because of our dramatic population increases, which have increased our enormous needs for energy, to survive – I am not talking about oil. Because of the amount of energy we need to survive, all the things that we used to do, with this slow knowledge, hunting and so on, is harmful to nature not because of the act, but rather because of the quantity.
This is applicable to our own designs because it slow knowledge shows the importance of looking back at designs from the past and seeing elements that you like and utilizing them. Fast knowledge is the importance of using you own creative talents to make your own work that my use some aspect or inspiration from older information, but it is never the same, and it is always something new and slightly different.
Post a Comment