The Nature of Technology Kap 4 Flashcards
Domains, or worlds entered for what can be accomplished there (10 cards)
What does Arthur mean by a domain, and how does it differ from an individual technology?
A domain is a cluster of related components, practices, rules of combination, and ways of thinking that engineers draw on—essentially a “toolbox” or language of technology. An individual technology, by contrast, is a specific device or method that does a particular job. Domains do no job in themselves; they supply the building blocks from which many technologies can be composed.
Give at least two reasons Arthur lists for why technologies tend to cluster into domains.
Technologies cluster because:
(1) they share a common underlying family of physical effects (e.g., electron flow in electronics, photons in photonics),
(2) they share a common purpose or function (e.g., cables, anchors, and bolts for cable‑stayed bridges),
(3) they match in scale or strength characteristics, and
(4) they repeatedly form useful sub‑parts of larger combinations (e.g., genetic‑engineering methods).
What is domaining in the design process, and why is it crucial?
Domaining is the deliberate choice of which domain—or palette of components—to use when constructing a device or system. This choice determines what the design can accomplish, how easily its parts interconnect, its cost, and even possibilities for future improvement. Often the choice is automatic, but for many modern systems (e.g., Linux vs. Windows for an operating system) it requires careful consideration
How does Arthur define redomaining, and how is it different from a routine improvement?
Redomaining is expressing an old purpose in an entirely different set of components—that is, moving the task into a new domain. Unlike incremental improvements within the same domain, redomaining can unlock wholly new efficiencies and possibilities, driving major technological progress (e.g., shifting aircraft controls from mechanical‑hydraulic linkages to digital fly‑by‑wire).
In what way did the shift to fly‑by‑wire aircraft controls exemplify redomaining?
Designers moved the control task out of the mechanical/hydraulic domain and into the digital electronics domain. This produced lighter, faster, and “intelligent” systems capable of stabilizing inherently unstable aircraft—capabilities impossible in the old domain—illustrating the transformative power of redomaining.
Explain Arthur’s analogy between domains and languages, including the role of grammar.
A domain supplies a vocabulary of components; engineering design is like composing an utterance in that vocabulary. Each domain has a “grammar”—principles that dictate which components fit together and under what conditions. Mastery involves intuitive fluency with both the vocabulary and the unspoken craft rules, much like eloquence in a spoken language.
What does Arthur mean when he calls a domain “a world entered for what can be accomplished there”?
When an object, signal, or process is translated into a domain’s terms (e.g., an image scanned into digital form), it can be manipulated by the specific, often highly efficient operations that world affords. Afterward it is brought back out for use in everyday physical reality. A domain thus defines a realm of possible manipulations unique to its medium.
Why do bridging technologies—the interfaces that let a task leave one domain and enter another—often dominate cost and complexity?
Core operations inside a domain are streamlined and cheap, but entering or exiting that world requires extra equipment and coordination (e.g., cranes and docks for container shipping, electronic conversions along fiber‑optic lines before EDFAs existed). These interfaces add delays, create bottlenecks, and therefore inflate overall costs.
According to Arthur, how do the power and limitations of a domain shape what is achievable in a historical era?
A domain’s power lies in the operations it makes easy and inexpensive (e.g., ultra‑fast logical operations in digital electronics), while its limitations are the tasks it cannot yet quantify or manipulate (e.g., “funkiness” in digital architectural design). Together these define the characteristic possibilities, style, and industrial reach of an era—and change as domains evolve.
Why does true mastery in a domain require more than knowing its explicit grammar?
The grammar of a domain evolves rapidly and includes tacit knowledge: rules of thumb, cultural practices, material quirks, and aesthetic “taste.” Like a master chef rather than a grocery buyer, an expert designer draws on thousands of nuanced possibilities and past experiences to compose apt, often surprising combinations that mere rule‑following cannot capture.
