Tweet
Is it possible to abuse a tool, and if so, how do we specify the conditions for this abuse?
Consider these much beloved abuses of the fork. Please watch these two videos before continuing with the rest of the article:
Did Scuttle abuse the fork when he used it to straighten his feathers? Did Ariel abuse it when she used it as a comb? What does it mean to use the word abuse in this context? Does it even have any meaning?
And perhaps the most philosophically interesting question: When Ariel combed her hair with the implement, was she using a fork or a dinglehopper?
Clearly Ariel's use of the artifact to comb her hair contradicts the intent of the original creator of the fork. The inventor, whomever he was, presumably intended the fork to serve as an instrument to aid in the transfer of food to the human mouth. He most certainly did not intend it to be used to comb hair or feathers. Yet is Ariel abusing the tool? Of course, one might at this point invoke Ariel's ignorance. She is mistaken about the dinglehopper's original purpose. But let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that she understood that it was originally conceived for other purposes, yet choose to use it as a comb anyway. Did she abuse it?
The answer is: No, of course not. The fork is a tool, and tools are functionally defined. Their identity does not lie within themselves but in their usage. In themselves tools are simply objects, things. Typically they are things that have been been made by human beings, i.e., artifacts. A thing becomes a tool, a specific kind of tool, by being used to accomplish specific tasks. In the hands of one person an artifact can be a fork; in the hands of another, a dinglehopper. Use defines tool identity.
Eric and Grimsby may be shocked by Ariel's curious, nontypical use of the fork, but in fact she wasn't using a fork; she was using a dinglehopper.
In the movie Becket, Thomas Becket introduces forks to the king and barons.
The barons did not see the point of the fork either and ended up stabbing each other. Did they abuse the fork when they used it for stabbing rather than for feeding? Did they misuse the fork when they decided to employ it as a weapon?
If you are tempted to say "yes," then you have fallen victim to the aetiological fallacy: i.e., the blunder of assuming that if one has correctly identified the origins of _____, one has in fact provided a sufficient explanation and justification of _____.
History is full of examples of tools being used to accomplish tasks never entertained by their inventors. As has been often pointed out, the dual action polisher was first marketed not as a paint polisher but as a wood sander. I do not know when someone first came up with the of adapting it to polish cars. Perhaps some people even objected to the idea. "It's a wood sander, man, not a paint polisher!" But of course there is no reason whatsoever why any given tool might not be adapted for new and different purposes. Tools, after all, are precisely tools. They can be made and re-made to be precisely what we want and need them to be.
Is it a wood sander or a paint polisher? Is it a fork or a dinglehopper?
In recent weeks I have come across on different detailing forums the claim that the "Kevin Brown Method" using the dual action polisher with Meguiar's non-diminishing abrasive polishes represents an abuse of the machine. As far as I can tell, those who make this argument are not claiming that the Method actually causes premature failure of the polisher, and no data is offered in support of such a claim; rather the claim seems to be precisely aetiological. As one person writes, "The pc is not designed to do what the KB method shows. I have no problem with the person themselves [sic] and have heard great things about him [viz., Kevin Brown], but promoting mis-use of a tool to me is wrong. To me and numerous others the pc is being pushed to do something it is not intended to do. It is a finishing sander for wood so it is not built for any added pressure." Note that abuse here is stipulated as use contrary to the intentions of the original designers. But clearly this is a non sequitur. The intention of either the original designer or the present manufacturer is completely irrelevant, nor does it matter how the polisher was marketed in the past, is marketed in the present, or will be marketed in the future. What determines proper use of a given tool is the actual use of the tool: Does it or does it not accomplish what the user of the tool hopes or intends by the employment of the tool? Even if the use were to cause "premature" failure of the tool, it doesn't mean that the tool is being abused. The tool could still be effectively accomplishing the work he wants it to do, and he may well judge that the benefit of operation outweighs the cost of replacement. Perhaps no other tool exists to accomplish the task that needs to be done. Perhaps another tool can do the work as well if not better, e.g., a rotary polisher, but he cannot afford to purchase it or does not have the skills to properly operate it.
All of these considerations lead me to the conclusion that the invocation of "abuse" is inappropriate when speaking of tools. It's a category mistake. Does it make sense to speak of the abusing of tools? One can abuse people, but can one abuse artifacts? If I spend $2,000 on a new iMac and then use it as a doorstop, I may well be guilty of not using the iMac according to the intentions of the original designers, and I am most certainly guilty of not exploiting all of its many advantages and powers; but I certainly have not abused it. It certainly works as a doorstop. Tools cannot be abused, just as they cannot be murdered, wounded, hurt, exploited, or offended. Tools cannot be treated unjustly. Tools can be broken, but they are never the victims of immoral acts. If we wish to speak of tool abuse, then it's important to recognize that we are speaking only figuratively, not literally.
What then might the metaphor of tool abuse signify? Let's return to the Kevin Brown Method and the PC. It is alleged that because of the heavy pressure prescribed by the method, the Porter Cable polisher is pushed beyond its limits. It simply was not built to sustain the amount of pressure stipulated by the process. Hence it might make figurative sense to speak of KBM detailers as "abusing" their machines; but only if in fact it were the case that their machines were breaking down under the strain. Premature failure or breakage, in other words, might suggest a misuse of a tool. If I employ a piece of wood as a lever and end up breaking it, perhaps I might be plausibly accused of having "abused" the piece of wood, though this is still a figurative manner of speaking. But the metaphor fails as metaphor if the piece of wood is not damaged by my actions. Similarly, it makes no sense to speak of PCs as being abused by the KBM if they do not appear to suffer any significant negative consequences, beyond, of course, the normal wear and tear that all tools suffer simply by being used to accomplish specific tasks.
But we can push the matter even further. Let us hypothetically assume that the KBM does cause the premature failure of the dual action polisher, premature, that is to say, when contrasted with other uses of the machine. Even if that were the case, that does not mean that the polisher is thereby misused or abused. We may well judge that the benefits of the KBM outweigh the costs, either in the short-term or the long-term. Please understand: I do not have the competence to make any judgments whatsoever about the Kevin Brown Method. I do not know if it is an effective polishing method or not. But if it were an effective method, then I might well decide to employ the method, even though I know that I might have to purchase a new PC in three years time instead of five years. Do we not in fact make these kind of cost/benefit analyses every day of our lives? All tools eventually break down through usage. The more miles I put on my car, the shorter its effective life-span; but that doesn't mean that I am abusing it when I drive it a lot. I bought the car precisely to drive it a lot. And this brings us back to the key point: tools can be broken or worn out; they cannot be literally abused.
Does the Kevin Brown Method work? Apparently it does, at least so say many detailers who have tried it. Does the Kevin Brown Method cause the premature failure of dual action polishers. Evidence has yet to be presented to support this charge. So what then is left of the charge of tool abuse? Nothing but an abused metaphor.
Cheers,
Al
(I'd like to thank my son Aaron Kimel for his help in the writing of this article. I have stolen from him several of his ideas, especially the insight that tools are functionally defined. He also recommended the scene between Ariel and Scuttle as a good illustration for my argument.)
Consider these much beloved abuses of the fork. Please watch these two videos before continuing with the rest of the article:
Did Scuttle abuse the fork when he used it to straighten his feathers? Did Ariel abuse it when she used it as a comb? What does it mean to use the word abuse in this context? Does it even have any meaning?
And perhaps the most philosophically interesting question: When Ariel combed her hair with the implement, was she using a fork or a dinglehopper?
Clearly Ariel's use of the artifact to comb her hair contradicts the intent of the original creator of the fork. The inventor, whomever he was, presumably intended the fork to serve as an instrument to aid in the transfer of food to the human mouth. He most certainly did not intend it to be used to comb hair or feathers. Yet is Ariel abusing the tool? Of course, one might at this point invoke Ariel's ignorance. She is mistaken about the dinglehopper's original purpose. But let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that she understood that it was originally conceived for other purposes, yet choose to use it as a comb anyway. Did she abuse it?
The answer is: No, of course not. The fork is a tool, and tools are functionally defined. Their identity does not lie within themselves but in their usage. In themselves tools are simply objects, things. Typically they are things that have been been made by human beings, i.e., artifacts. A thing becomes a tool, a specific kind of tool, by being used to accomplish specific tasks. In the hands of one person an artifact can be a fork; in the hands of another, a dinglehopper. Use defines tool identity.
Eric and Grimsby may be shocked by Ariel's curious, nontypical use of the fork, but in fact she wasn't using a fork; she was using a dinglehopper.
In the movie Becket, Thomas Becket introduces forks to the king and barons.
Thomas a Becket: Tonight you can do me the honor of christening my forks.
King Henry II: Forks?
Thomas a Becket: Yes, from Florence. New little invention. It's for pronging meat and carrying it to the mouth. It saves you dirtying your fingers.
King Henry II: But then you dirty the fork.
Thomas a Becket: Yes, but it's washable.
King Henry II: So are your fingers. I don't see the point.
King Henry II: Forks?
Thomas a Becket: Yes, from Florence. New little invention. It's for pronging meat and carrying it to the mouth. It saves you dirtying your fingers.
King Henry II: But then you dirty the fork.
Thomas a Becket: Yes, but it's washable.
King Henry II: So are your fingers. I don't see the point.
If you are tempted to say "yes," then you have fallen victim to the aetiological fallacy: i.e., the blunder of assuming that if one has correctly identified the origins of _____, one has in fact provided a sufficient explanation and justification of _____.
History is full of examples of tools being used to accomplish tasks never entertained by their inventors. As has been often pointed out, the dual action polisher was first marketed not as a paint polisher but as a wood sander. I do not know when someone first came up with the of adapting it to polish cars. Perhaps some people even objected to the idea. "It's a wood sander, man, not a paint polisher!" But of course there is no reason whatsoever why any given tool might not be adapted for new and different purposes. Tools, after all, are precisely tools. They can be made and re-made to be precisely what we want and need them to be.
Is it a wood sander or a paint polisher? Is it a fork or a dinglehopper?
In recent weeks I have come across on different detailing forums the claim that the "Kevin Brown Method" using the dual action polisher with Meguiar's non-diminishing abrasive polishes represents an abuse of the machine. As far as I can tell, those who make this argument are not claiming that the Method actually causes premature failure of the polisher, and no data is offered in support of such a claim; rather the claim seems to be precisely aetiological. As one person writes, "The pc is not designed to do what the KB method shows. I have no problem with the person themselves [sic] and have heard great things about him [viz., Kevin Brown], but promoting mis-use of a tool to me is wrong. To me and numerous others the pc is being pushed to do something it is not intended to do. It is a finishing sander for wood so it is not built for any added pressure." Note that abuse here is stipulated as use contrary to the intentions of the original designers. But clearly this is a non sequitur. The intention of either the original designer or the present manufacturer is completely irrelevant, nor does it matter how the polisher was marketed in the past, is marketed in the present, or will be marketed in the future. What determines proper use of a given tool is the actual use of the tool: Does it or does it not accomplish what the user of the tool hopes or intends by the employment of the tool? Even if the use were to cause "premature" failure of the tool, it doesn't mean that the tool is being abused. The tool could still be effectively accomplishing the work he wants it to do, and he may well judge that the benefit of operation outweighs the cost of replacement. Perhaps no other tool exists to accomplish the task that needs to be done. Perhaps another tool can do the work as well if not better, e.g., a rotary polisher, but he cannot afford to purchase it or does not have the skills to properly operate it.
All of these considerations lead me to the conclusion that the invocation of "abuse" is inappropriate when speaking of tools. It's a category mistake. Does it make sense to speak of the abusing of tools? One can abuse people, but can one abuse artifacts? If I spend $2,000 on a new iMac and then use it as a doorstop, I may well be guilty of not using the iMac according to the intentions of the original designers, and I am most certainly guilty of not exploiting all of its many advantages and powers; but I certainly have not abused it. It certainly works as a doorstop. Tools cannot be abused, just as they cannot be murdered, wounded, hurt, exploited, or offended. Tools cannot be treated unjustly. Tools can be broken, but they are never the victims of immoral acts. If we wish to speak of tool abuse, then it's important to recognize that we are speaking only figuratively, not literally.
What then might the metaphor of tool abuse signify? Let's return to the Kevin Brown Method and the PC. It is alleged that because of the heavy pressure prescribed by the method, the Porter Cable polisher is pushed beyond its limits. It simply was not built to sustain the amount of pressure stipulated by the process. Hence it might make figurative sense to speak of KBM detailers as "abusing" their machines; but only if in fact it were the case that their machines were breaking down under the strain. Premature failure or breakage, in other words, might suggest a misuse of a tool. If I employ a piece of wood as a lever and end up breaking it, perhaps I might be plausibly accused of having "abused" the piece of wood, though this is still a figurative manner of speaking. But the metaphor fails as metaphor if the piece of wood is not damaged by my actions. Similarly, it makes no sense to speak of PCs as being abused by the KBM if they do not appear to suffer any significant negative consequences, beyond, of course, the normal wear and tear that all tools suffer simply by being used to accomplish specific tasks.
But we can push the matter even further. Let us hypothetically assume that the KBM does cause the premature failure of the dual action polisher, premature, that is to say, when contrasted with other uses of the machine. Even if that were the case, that does not mean that the polisher is thereby misused or abused. We may well judge that the benefits of the KBM outweigh the costs, either in the short-term or the long-term. Please understand: I do not have the competence to make any judgments whatsoever about the Kevin Brown Method. I do not know if it is an effective polishing method or not. But if it were an effective method, then I might well decide to employ the method, even though I know that I might have to purchase a new PC in three years time instead of five years. Do we not in fact make these kind of cost/benefit analyses every day of our lives? All tools eventually break down through usage. The more miles I put on my car, the shorter its effective life-span; but that doesn't mean that I am abusing it when I drive it a lot. I bought the car precisely to drive it a lot. And this brings us back to the key point: tools can be broken or worn out; they cannot be literally abused.
Does the Kevin Brown Method work? Apparently it does, at least so say many detailers who have tried it. Does the Kevin Brown Method cause the premature failure of dual action polishers. Evidence has yet to be presented to support this charge. So what then is left of the charge of tool abuse? Nothing but an abused metaphor.
Cheers,
Al
(I'd like to thank my son Aaron Kimel for his help in the writing of this article. I have stolen from him several of his ideas, especially the insight that tools are functionally defined. He also recommended the scene between Ariel and Scuttle as a good illustration for my argument.)
Comment