The changing morality of numbers
Don't know what a slide rule is for

-- Sam Cooke, 1960

I know it will seem a bit self-indulgent to write a second post about a post I just wrote, but forgive me, because this is therapy; not blogging.

I just can't remember any time in the past year when the act of writing and publishing single blog post has so lifted my spirits as it did yesterday.

Because I try to separate my logical from my emotional side, I need to examine why I found it so emotionally rewarding to write about something I always found emotionally unrewarding in the extreme. (Perhaps there's an inherent emotional reward in attacking the emotionally unrewarding.)

There's something very gratifying about letting go of the past. This, um, thing -- the so despicable slide rule -- a seemingly irrelevant detail from my life, mired as it was in forgotten detritus of American culture, has plagued me for most of my life, as my inability (failure?) to learn how to use it was one of those pivotal events which steered me into law school.

For me, the slide rule is literal and symbolic.

It is human morality, on a sliding scale. The slide rule is proof that there is such a thing as cultural and moral relativism.

Slide rule morality?

Not quite as insane as it looks.

First, consider it as a cultural artifact:

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the slide rule was the symbol of the engineer's profession (in the same way that the stethoscope symbolized the medical profession). As an anecdote it can be mentioned that German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun brought two 1930s vintage Nestler slide rules with him when he moved to the U.S. after World War II to work on the American space program. Throughout his life he never used any other pocket calculating devices; slide rules obviously served him perfectly well for making quick estimates of rocket design parameters and other figures. Pickett brand slide rules were the standard in the Apollo program; Pickett's slide rules of the era often included a NASA or Apollo logo to promote the fact. A Pickett N600-MES (6 inch, magnifying cursor, "Eye-Saver" yellow) was standard equipment on all Apollo flights.

Some engineering students and engineers carried ten-inch slide rules in belt holsters, and even into the late 1960s this was a common sight on some campuses. Students also might keep a ten-or twenty-inch rule for precision work at home or the office while carrying a five-inch pocket slide rule around with them.

Now, while the original reason the slide rule came into use is that it allowed calculations to be performed more quickly does not fully explain why it became one of the trappings of culture.

The slide rule required reason and understanding, and learning to use it well took ordinary mathematics into another plain. In effect, learning to use a slide rule required relearning math, or at least learning to think about it in another, new way. It was thus a cultural stepping stone, a true rite of passage. It is not exaggeration to say that it separated the men from the boys.

Much as I hate it, I must recognize that the slide rule had an elegance all its own, something that has been largely forgotten along with its demise. Common sense was built into the slide rule. Without the former, the latter was impossible to use. Even today, this is something button pushers forget at their peril:

A slide rule tends to moderate the fallacy of "false precision" and significance. The typical precision available to a user of a slide rule is about three places of accuracy. This is in good correspondence with most data available for input to engineering formulas (such as the strength of materials, accurate to two or three places of precision, with a great amount—typically 1.5 or greater—of safety factor as an additional multiplier for error, variations in construction skill, and variability of materials). There's an old saying in engineering, "if you care about the third significant digit of tensile strength, you are already in trouble." When a modern pocket calculator is used, the precision may be displayed to seven to ten places of accuracy while in reality, the results can never be of greater precision than the input data available.
The way American geeks thought about numbers was irreversibly changed. It's amazing that there wasn't more resistance than there was to getting rid of it.

Nonetheless, the cultural icon remained on display in certain circles:

Computers also changed the nature of calculation. With slide rules, there was a great emphasis on working the algebra to get expressions into the most computable form. Small terms were approximated or dropped. Fortran allowed complicated formulas simply to be typed in from textbooks. Numerical integration was often easier than trying to find closed form solutions. More difficult problems could be solved. The young engineer asking for computer time to solve a problem that could have been done by a few swipes on the slide rule became a humorous cliché. Many computer centers had a framed slide rule hung on a wall with the note "In case of emergency, break glass."
Asking for computer time? Few would understand such a thing today. Fewer still would understand the slide rule in a glass case. (But what if the Ten Commandments were placed in a glass case with a similar sign at, say, a local police station? Would the satire work the same way? Or am I not allowed to pose such questions?)

Notwithstanding its obvious virtues, there really is no rational argument which can be made for bringing the slide rule back.

Culture was changed.

Was morality changed too? Or is there no such thing as morality in numbers? (Oddly enough, the calculator represents the triumph of absolutism over the slide rule's inherent relativity, but that's a supremely relative irony that I'm afraid only Steven Malcolm Anderson would appreciate, God bless him....)

Emotionally, I think it's a good thing for me to let the slide rule go.

UPDATE: As Glenn Reynolds notes, people continue to grumble about the ways in which digital technology has changed the nature of human thought:

We need to listen to the expert warnings about the potential impact of digital communication on how people think and learn
Is it time to break the glass on the slide rule cases yet?

(If we have to move in reverse, I'd prefer the abacus!)

posted by Eric on 04.25.06 at 07:30 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3535






Comments

I seem to have been slightly behind you in the curve - when I was in school calculators were still clunky and expensive, but accepted.

I am an engineer and so is my dad. He tried to teach me slide rule skills - we had a few classes in it, just like we had a few classes in the use of drafting pens before moving into the CAD software that took up the bulk of our drafting course.

Never did catch on. My father was a bit crestfallen.

But he did get a kick out of the CAD software.

Talk about how a tool changes patterns of thought and perception - the computer's ability to dynamically present 3D reality has basically destroyed an entire visual language of various projections, cutaway sections, etc. Now you can navigate right through the innards of any machine or structure.

I think the old 2D representational language only survives in building plans. Most manufacturing and moldmaking goes straight from 3D computer model to computer-controlled manufacturing machinery, without an engineering drawing in sight.

Anonymous   ·  April 25, 2006 10:44 AM

the old 2D representational language only survives in building plans?

I'm wondering why it survives even there.

Perhaps the codes and inspections bureaucracy lags behind the real world.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 25, 2006 10:42 PM

>> Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the slide rule was the symbol of the engineer's profession.

The sliderule was still around in the early '70s. I passed the equivalency exam with a 4" cicular Pickett http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/slide32/pickett-101cf.jpg (it was equivalent to a 12" straight rule, mine was a light green) in 1970. The calculator was just starting to take over in '72 when the HP 35 and 45 calculator came out(http://www.hpmuseum.org/). Those of us in electronics that could afford them usually finished homework before the end of class. The rest of us figured on 1-2 hours of homework.

Robert Durtschi   ·  April 26, 2006 03:32 PM

My drafting class had both hand-drawn sections (no pens, though) and computer-aided sections. I think this is because there will be times when you don't have a computer.

And yes, one of the hand-drawn things was technical lettering. Probably the first time some of the students' handwriting had EVER been legible.

B. Durbin   ·  April 27, 2006 01:14 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits