The politics of technology adoption : Water metering in Progressive Era Chicago

This paper examines the interactions between knowledge and power in the adoption of technologies central to municipal water supply plans, specifically investigating decisions in Progressive Era Chicago regarding water meters. The invention and introduction into use of the reliable water meter early in the Progressive Era allowed planners and engineers to gauge water use, and enabled communities willing to invest in the new infrastructure to allocate costs for provision of supply to consumers relative to use. In an era where efficiency was so prized and the role of technocratic expertise was increasing, Chicago’s continued failure to adopt metering (despite levels of per capita consumption nearly twice that of comparable cities and acknowledged levels of waste nearing half of system production) may indicate that the underlying characteristics of the city’s political system and its elite stymied the implementation of metering technologies as in Smith’s (1977) comparative study of nineteenth century armories. Perhaps, as with Flyvbjerg’s (1998) study of the city of Aalborg, the powerful know what they want and data will not interfere with their conclusions: if the data point to a solution other than what is desired, then it must be that the data are wrong. Alternatively, perhaps the technocrats failed adequately to communicate their findings in a language which the political elite could understand, with the failure lying in assumptions of scientific or technical literacy rather than with dissatisfaction in outcomes (Benveniste 1972). When examined through a historical institutionalist perspective, the case study of metering adoption lends itself to exploration of larger issues of knowledge and power in the planning process: what governs decisions regarding knowledge acquisition, how knowledge and power interact, whether the potential to improve knowledge leads to changes in action, and, whether the decision to overlook available knowledge has an impact on future decisions.

Is Dawkins a modern-day Nicodemus?

This article applies a Wittgensteinian approach to the examination of the intelligibility of religious belief, in the wake of the recent attack on the Judeo-Christian religion by Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion. The article attempts to show that Dawkins has confused religion with superstition, and that while Dawkins's arguments are decisive in the case of superstition, they do not successfully show religion to be a delusion. Religious belief in God is not like belief in the existence of a planet, and genuine religious faith is not like the belief in something for which there is not yet enough evidence, like belief in dark matter. The Christian doctrines of the resurrection and eternal life are misconstrued if they are understood as factual claims because they are then merely shallow superstitions, and not the great religious riddles they are meant to be.

Reduction rules for YAWL workflows with cancellation regions and OR-joins

As the need for concepts such as cancellation and OR-joins occurs naturally in business scenarios, comprehensive support in a workflow language is desirable. However, there is a clear trade-off between the expressive power of a language (i.e., introducing complex constructs such as cancellation and OR-joins) and ease of verification. When a workflow contains a large number of tasks and involves complex control flow dependencies, verification can take too much time or it may even be impossible. There are a number of different approaches to deal with this complexity. Reducing the size of the workflow, while preserving its essential properties with respect to a particular analysis problem, is one such approach. In this paper, we present a set of reduction rules for workflows with cancellation regions and OR-joins and demonstrate how they can be used to improve the efficiency of verification. Our results are presented in the context of the YAWL workflow language.