Petroski, Henry (1992). The Evolution of Useful Things. Vintage.
Chapters 1-4.
Questions from:
Beach,
Dianova,
French,
Lane,
Legow,
Lin,
Palchaudhuri,
Pedersen
In the example of the evolution of forks (from one-tined fork to four-tined fork), what are the main focus of the inventors? Is it necessity or cultural context?
Petroski states that the evolution of tableware promoted manners, but was it
also an aid to the developing of a greater separation in social class?
While the spoon, fork, table knife and steak knife have been developed
to be useful in the consumption of various foods, chopsticks have
remained essentially the same and instead chinese food itself has
adapted to suit chopsticks (i.e it usually made of bite-size pieces
that are tender so that they may be split by the chopstick if
necessary). Are there other technologies whose evolution has not
progressed significantly but rather the context it is used in, has
changed to suit the application of the technology?
Alexander declares that misfit provides an incentive to change; good fit provides none. In some cases, I am sure people have different perspectives on the same device, regarding to whether it is misfit or not.
What standard can we use to justify whether the device is misfit.
While tools and technologies can never be perfect, do you agree that perfection is at least possible in the eyes of the designer?
A lot of inventions were made by not very normal people (for example, Albert Einstein, Howard Hughes, and etc.), who lived in their "own" world. How could such people create things that serve everyone's needs?
Petroski indicates one's "disappointment with the inefficiency with
which things are done" (p.38) as a reason of inventions. For his/her
live every person faces with things that are not made perfectly,
but only few of them try to create something new to improve them.
Why? What talents, knowledge and motives should a person have to
invent anything?
In Chapter 3 we are told that Brunel claims 'the patent system
obstructs real progress'. What do you think is meant by the term 'real
progress'? How does the patent system obstruct real progress? In the
second chapter Petroski mentions that one reason for the evolution of
technology is that inventors like to show their "ingenuity and artistic
talent". Does this theory hold water, and what lines can be drawn between
inventors and artists?
An invention is a failure by default. It does not completely address
the problem, but may provide a workable solution. We live with
outdated designs all around us-the author has used utensils and a
common dinner table as examples. What contemporary and premodern
forces have opposed innovation or attribute 'innovation' with
negative connotations? Compare, contrast, or calculate these forces
on premodern and modern people or objects(where applicable), in
cultivation of an argument against developmental innovation.
If we consider Petroski's thesis, that the forms of things develop in
response to failures of previous models, with Prof. Whittaker's, that
technology's evolution is parallel to organic evolution, in its drive
to find functional niches, do the two overlap, or conflict with each
other? Which seems to be more accurate and complete?
The author declares that the central idea is that technology "subject
to change in response to their real or pereived shortcomings," but also
argues that perfection can never be achieved. Can technologies that do
its purpose better than any other conceivable invention be considered
perfect or is perfection truly impossible?
;
Check with Bobby