This week’s primary focus was structuring the paper outline, with an emphasis on the argument section. Second, to that, I not only met with my primary mentor Dr. David Danks, but also Alex John London, director of History, Ethics, and Public Policy. This is a brief summary of those meetings, reflection on CMU ’s academic excellence, the joys and struggles of academic composition, and finally, the benefits of daily journaling and weekly blog posts.
I met with Dr. Alex John London, Wednesday, June 12th to discuss self-driving cars and policy. There were three main takeaways; One, always refer to history concerning new technology adoption, two, move beyond the discussion of philosophy and policy and apply them to real-world problems, and third, read John Stuart Mill’s famous essay “On Liberty.”
People fear change and disruptive technologies. One key example London referenced concerned mathematical calculations by “human computers.” In the 1960s, calculators were new, and computers still in their infantile stages. Astronaut John Glenn famously demanded human-computer Katherine Goble to double check his return calculations. He did not trust the new computers. London also explained we do not want the game of musical chairs in life mixed up and lose our seat. Similarly, self-driving cars pose a threat to transportation norms.
London explained that today’s philosophy focuses on talking about Plato and Aristotle but not solving problems with those ideas. London’s ancient philosophy background combines mathematical computation, the scientific method, ethics, and philosophy in one. Ancient philosophy focuses on solving problems with the intersection of these fields, not talking about them. This is why as a historian, philosopher, mathematician, and ethicist, London not only talks about problems but uses these skills to solve real-world problems.
Reading “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill provides the context of values and individuality present in the United States. London recommends this book as a springboard into values self-driving car policymakers should respect. Here are the three main arguments; One, freedom of individual thought, expression, consciousness, and speech and writing; two, freedom to live as one pleases as long as does not interfere with other’s lives; third, freedom to peaceably assemble.
Although these three main areas may seem far-fetched concerning self-driving cars, London explains they are vital in today’s conversation.
I met with Dr. Danks Friday, June 15th to discuss my findings and discuss the drafting stage of research. After I researched and filled out the paper outline, Danks proposed we write the main argument first. This way I don’t waste time and energy writing about all the benefits of self-driving cars only to realize most of it is useless regarding the argument. After extensive discussion, we clarified the structure of the argument and final question we are addressing. This week’s task is drafting the main argument and sending it to Danks for feedback.
Moving from a teaching institution at Cal State Monterey to a research-intensive university is truly mind-boggling. The level of rigor, academic excellence, interdisciplinary research, and high standards of professionalism force me to elevate my standards and approach to research. These two faculty members are incredible inspirations and true reflections of vintage CMU. My mentor Dr. David Danks is a world-renowned psychologist, philosopher, and mathematician. Danks works at the intersection of these fields to achieve truly unique contributions in academia. As London points out, you must move beyond theory and academic discussion to solving real-world puzzles. Danks does just that by traveling around the world talking to policy and government leaders regarding autonomous technologies. Not just cars, but warfare systems, and medical applications as well.
I am humbled to work with incredible people such as Danks and London. They inspire me to learn more than a traditional degree. They inspire me to work at the intersection of mathematics, history, philosophy, and social science. This experience is much more than “self-driving cars,” it opens the door to walk towards what I truly want to study and ultimately contribute back to the world.
This does not go without saying that research and sharing your findings is easy. I struggle and still struggle with just writing those first drafts, or choosing one more article from the vast ocean of literature. Yes, Danks and London inspire and guide me, but the path is not easy.
One final point. On top of weekly blog posts, I keep a detailed daily journal. Each entry summarizes research related work or meetings with professors. Additionally, I write any thoughts or ideas on this research, findings, feelings, insights, joys, and frustrations. Most important of all, I can identify what does and does not work. Daily habits or routines that result in poor research focus, or days that just click. Hidden rationalizations or excuses that hinder productivity and peace of mind emerge as well. One month and 30,000 words later, who I am is stepping into the sunlight for analysis. You could say this is self-research. Finding what is there. Questioning it. And identifying what is missing or could be better.
This post is longer than usual, but the previous week had much to offer. Research goal(s) for the following week(s) include; composing the arguments section, and meeting with Martial Hebert, director of the Robotics Institute to discuss A.I and Self-driving cars.
Timothy Geary Portfolio 