Black-box electronics and passive learning

Ludwik Kowalski raises some interesting points on the nontransparent technological devices that pervade our lives (Physics Today, October 2013, page 8 ). I have an additional concern about those devices. I agree with Kowalski that they fail to promote curiosity. But suppose one of my electronic devices behaves in a way I don’t expect. If I do somehow become curious about its behavior—Was it a network glitch? Design whim? Virus?—what I might learn has nothing to do with science or causality. I’m more likely to learn about human nature, corporate look and feel, or perhaps that what I observed was just a random event I cannot duplicate. What I learn will lead me away from science—from even thinking that science could be relevant for understanding my world.

On the engineering side, if I want to fix or improve my device, I can’t; the hardware is typically sealed. Software presents a similar situation; writing for devices requires advanced skills from the outset and possibly a license agreement. My curiosity is far from encouraged. The lesson to me is, “Sorry, technology is beyond your grasp.”

I think most modern devices not only fail to promote curiosity, they actively discourage it. I find it ironic that our wealth of technology, distributed widely in the population, may end up contributing to an antiscience mindset. That could bode ill for public debate on, say, climate change.