You know what assuming does...

Mark Wolf focused his essay, Subjunctive Documentary: Computer Imaging and Simulation, on the subjunctive nature of documentation specifically in computer simulation. In grammar, the subjunctive tense refers to the conditional, such as could be, would be, and might have been. A subjunctive document then would contain elements of these conditionals. Computer simulations are based on certain data which dictate the outcome of the simulation. According to Wolf,

The computer allows not only physical indices like visual resemblance but conceptual indices (like gravity or the laws of physics) to govern simulated events…In many cases, actual experiments and events are represented as measurements and relationships; these are abstracted into a set of laws governing the phenomena, and these laws become the basis for creating the potential events of the simulation. (423)

In other words, computer simulations run on assumptions. Of course, some assumptions are more scientifically sound than others, but this doesn’t diminish the fact that if the data underlying a computer simulation is faulty, then the resulting image is also false. I know this is common sense, but consider how much trust people put into computer simulations. Wolf mentioned that because of computer simulations, pilots can earn their license without ever leaving the ground, surgeons can operate on people without having practiced on cadavers, and automobile designers can test-drive cars without ever actually running a physical test (was I the only one disturbed by all of this?). Computer simulations are even considered as evidence and proof in a courtroom setting (Wolf 424-427). Wolf wrote, “[P]eople’s unquestioning faith in both the documentary quality of the presentations and the scientific and mathematical means of producing them make it necessary for judges to remind jurors of the unreal and speculator nature of such simulations” (427, emphasis added).

Punyashloke Mishra also alluded to assumptions in his paper, The Role of Abstraction in Scientific Illustration: Implications for Pedagogy: “Thus the conventions of representation are thus more than artistic devices, they take their authority from previous experience and the state of the scientific field to competently build on a body of assumptions about the represented structures” (150). In the view of sociologists of science, this statement actually lends credence to diagrams. “Within the context of a given scientific discourse, a photograph is an imperfect representation, while a diagram represents it more faithfully” (Mishra 150). Notice that in order to interpret the diagram, which is built on assumptions, one must also be acquainted with the context in which the image is displayed. According to psychologists of art, “[S]ome pictorial conventions need more learning than others and some illustrations pose difficulties because they make greater use of conventions than others” (Mishra 144). When people aren’t familiar with the theories underlying the image, they form misconceptions. For example, “Many people believe that Earth is closer to the Sun in the summer and that is why it is hotter. And, likewise, they think Earth is farthest from the Sun in the winter…However, in the Northern Hemisphere, we are having winter when Earth is closest to the Sun and summer when it is farthest away!” (NASA Space Place). The real reason for the seasons has to do with the tilt of Earth’s axis. Mishra noted that perhaps this common misconception is due to the illustration of earth’s orbit around the sun found in many textbooks. Sociologists of science readily admit that “one cannot remove the context (speaking of the context in very general terms) from the image. The context is part of the illustration itself” (Mishra 152).

I came across a website dedicated to Richard L. Gregory that added more insight to the topic of image and perception. One particular section I liked stated that, “Philosophy and science have traditionally separated intelligence from perception, vision being seen as a passive window on the world and intelligence as active problem-solving. It is a quite recent idea that perception, especially vision, requires intelligent problem-solving based on knowledge” (Knowledge in perception and illusion). The article then differentiates knowledge from intelligence. We usually think that knowledgeable people are intelligent, and vice versa, but the two aren’t necessarily interdependent. Intelligence is an active processing of information, whereas knowledge is more passive in the sense that it can be described as “stored-up answers” (Knowledge in perception and illusion). So in reference to a scientific diagram, the more knowledge a person has of the context of the image, the less intelligence they require to interpret it. (Ha, I found this hilariously ironic). Anyway, scientific diagrams/images require—and they assume—people to have knowledge about the context surrounding the image in order to perceive it correctly.

I jump now from Mishra’s article and the emphasis on context to an excerpt from Wolf’s paper on computer simulations:

The data used in simulations are often much more selective and abstract than the images and sound of conventional film documentary, which take in background scenery and sound, recording the subject’s milieu along with the subject. Thus a lack of context may occur in some simulations, limiting the means of cross-checking data and limiting the data to only what was thought to be important at the time—or, worse, what could be afforded. (431, emphasis added)

Hm. If context is important in understanding an image, and some computer simulations may lack context, then….

Basically, here is what I’ve learned: Computer simulations and scientific illustrations are not only based on assumptions, but they are designed by people who assume viewers are cognizant of the context in which the image is present. Viewers assume that the simulations or illustration depict reality, and as a result, they may form misconceptions. I guess we must be careful not to assume too much in what we see, lest we make an a** out of you and me.