No response here. I feel that the point of the black box activity has not been fully clarified. I think only one group came halfway to "getting it" during the weekend when they wrote that the box was intended as a metaphor... So let's try again.

Stage 1

What could the black box represent in the natural sciences? In physics, for example?

What could the black box represent in the human sciences? In psychology, for example?

What could the black box represent in history?

If we had some answers to these questions, then we could move on and learn something from the activity. This would be stage 2, but we can't discuss that until we have some answers for stage 1...

I think the aim of the black box activity was misconstrued. However, I will try and give opinion on what the black box may reperesent in the human sciences with respect to psychology. Psychology is the study of the human mind by another human mind. From the set go, we see that there will be some difficulty in doing this as one human mind is being studied by another human mind. With the black box, we were searching for what was inside the box through logical means but we could not penetrate the box logically (but we could have done so physically), so maybe we took the wrong approach. In psychology, how sure are we that the methods by which we try to study the human mind are effective or better still right? We can't be sure of this because we can't isolate ourselves completely from the study of the mind as it involves us intuitively.

I'll be focusing on what the black box could represent in history. For me the black box reperesents the various historic events. During our activity with the black box, we could only shake and slide the box to obtain information. We couldn't feel or see whatever was inside the box.

In the same vein, in history, unfortunately events cannot be reenacted. As a result, the historians(unless eye-witnesses) cannot in anyway experience or witness the events he/she is to examine. However, the historian can only compile, filter and analyse sources, which is equivalent to shaking and sliding the black box.

Till now, we cannot really tell the contents of the black box because we have not opened it.Even if Mr. Kitching tells us the contents, we will not be cock-sure if he is telling the truth or not. That is the same way those who experienced or witnessed historic events will provide sources...but it is quite impossible to fully examine the validity of these sources because we cannot turn back the wings of time to mine the truth or open the black box of history.

I find this quite interesting because it shows how difficult it must be for historians to analyse sources.Our frustration and curiosity made us feel like ripping the boxes open and I bet that's how the historians feel. The scientists are very privileged to be able to conduct experiments.

I really like Zac's comments on the black box. Yes somtimes we do not appear to be making much progress with the conventional means but then do we have any other options. I p[ressume that is what this quest for knowledge is about to evolve better means to enable us know. until then we can only patiently adjust our methods till we get convincing results.this is more of what the great scientist of old have painstakingly done to get us where we are today. Yes Zac, did get the point of the excersise but since he could not penetrate the box logically. he proposed that the way to know was to get physical that is tear the box up and see what was in it ( Trust my sports monitor). This is where Afua's contribution for me is a masterpiece. She related the blackbox activity to history very well. But my question is, with knowledge do we always have to see to believe? who can give me some good examples where we do not see physically (to borrow zac's word) but we still believe. I'm waiting for as many answers as possible. This for me is a random test of who is abreast on the blogg.
Michael Djan

Mr. Djan, we do not always have to see to believ to acquire knowledge; that's why imagination is a very essential. If the Wright Brothers had not imagined that an iron object could fly like a bird, then they wouldn't have ever built an airplane. Albert Einstein put it:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

I like the black box from the Physics Point of view. The black box is exactly want physicists have to deal with. We can only extrapolate information about the contents by doing tests (sliding and shaking). The results are then placed against the knowledge that we already have to try and figure out what is in the black box.

But a couple of things come up for me:

Would we ever be able to rip up the black box and see what is inside for what it really is? Would there ever be a time when we would fully know?

Is there a problem in that the reason we would say there is a blockade in the middle of the black box is because the ball in it is no longer moving halfway through? I mean, what if the ball was a machine programmed to float in the middle of the box? I believe this is a big question for physics. Are we only explaining things so they fit in comfortably with what we believe? What if our basic laws and theories are all wrong?

Imagine there was a device that allowed us to see through walls (or cardboard), then the black box wouldn't have been a mystery. We would have immediately known. Could technology ever get us there or will this technology also be based on the laws we have established as true and therefore prone to errors in finding out the content of the black box?

Unfortunately, we seem to have no other alternative to our method of dealing with the black box. All we can do is continue to shake and slide the ball and hope we can fully grasp the contents of the box. Or is there an alternative?

I would like to relate this activity from my knowledge of Ethics.
Example:-
1.A person is blind-folded and told to write about an object which he felt.(He wrote what he imagined!)
2.Another person who is NOT blind-folded is given the same piece of object and is told to write about it. And they are marked out of 10 for their analysis on their piece of writing.
The first person gets 4 out of 10 but the second person gets 10 out of 10.
Therefore, it is pretty logical to understand that first person did not score full marks because he was blind-folded and the second person got full marks because he was NOT blindfolded. This is not a very good ethical example but it has a point.

Point is that Was it fair to the person who was blind-folded to be marked out of same marks as the person who was not - against the object given? A layman answer to this question is a simple NO!

Hence, Was the “Black box” activity morally ethical? Was it morally right to blind-fold us(by not letting us see inside the box) as the first person in the example and ask us to write a page of what we think is inside a box? On the whole was the whole exercise to find out the truth which was hidden inside the box that we could not even see? Therefore is our imagination always right?

Hereby , It is difficult for me to understand the moral of the story or rather I should say the myth behind the “ black box” activity??- Perhaps Mr. Kitching said that to learn the moral from this activity is stage-2 so I am eagerly waiting for the next stage to understand the point of the “black box” adventure.. :)