Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seeing the Turn: Microscopes, Gyroscopes, and Responsible Analysis in Petroleum Engineering

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility

Part of the book series: Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie ((TPAHT,volume 1))

  • 415 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers the role of perception in petroleum engineering. Specifically, it looks at data analysis practices in geological surveying, wellbore navigation, directional drilling and related techniques. It begins with a familiar argument in the philosophy of science that there are no stable, non-stipulative grounds for distinguishing between ordinary cases of perception and cases where the perceptual system includes microscopes. It extends this claim to the use of gyroscopes and the data they generate. Finally, it explores the implications of this form of perception for the idea of responsible analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an extended analysis of the relationship between scientific and engineering knowledge see Kant and Kerr (2018).

  2. 2.

    The tenuous distinction between cognitive systems ‘inside the skin and skull’ and non-cognitive systems ‘outside the skin and skull’ has already been questioned and debated thoroughly in Clark and Chalmers (1998) and subsequent literature. In a similar vein, I propose that the well log (the graphically represented data drawn from the gyroscope tool) extends ordinary unaided perception in a comparable way to how the notebook of Otto extends his ordinary unaided memory. Kerr and Gelfert (2014) considers what it would mean for scientific evidence to be extended and Kerr (2017) considers evidence in engineering.

  3. 3.

    See, e.g. Gregory (1980); Knill et al. (1996); Knill and Pouget (2004); Rust and Stocker (2010).

  4. 4.

    Consider for example a typical account of perception outlined by Miller (2000).

  5. 5.

    Whether someone born blind and who has learnt to distinguish and name spheres and cubes by touch would be able to distinguish and name these objects by sight if he became able to see was a question posed to John Locke by William Molyneux in 1688. Locke speculated, correctly, that such a person would not. See Degenaar and Lokhorst (2010) and Gallagher (2005). For examples of problems recovering eyesight see the case of Michael May in Bower (2003).

  6. 6.

    This is but one option available in solving an estimation problem viz. the problem that our perceptual and cognitive system is supposed to solve. I have chosen to focus on this option as a potential explanation or framework for how our sensory system deals with ambiguous sensory information but note here that we need not necessarily adopt this exact approach.

  7. 7.

    See Adams and Aizawa (2001) and Berti and Frassinetti (2000) for more on this debate.

  8. 8.

    Whilst this paper focuses on the epistemology of tools used in these practises, Kerr (2014) focuses on their ontology, providing a reference-based case study.

  9. 9.

    Although the philosopher in me is inclined to ask if, like Descartes, they wondered whether the wax was the same when it came out as it was when it went in. And, in many ways, it is not: the wax now bears information, a source of knowledge, an inscription or representation of well inclination.

  10. 10.

    For more of my research on mud-pulse telemetry see Sur and Kerr (2019).

References

  • Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2001). The bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 14(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 415–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, B. (2003). Vision seekers: Giving eyesight to the blind raises questions about how people see. Science News, 164, 331–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BP Amoco Upstream Technology Group. (1999). Directional survey handbook: September issue 1. Aberdeen: ODL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degenaar, M., & Lokhorst, G-J. (2010). Molyneux’s problem. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.,) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition).http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/molyneux-problem/.

  • Froese, T., & Spiers, A. (2007). Toward a phenomenological pragmatics of enactive perception. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Enactive Interfaces (pp. 105–108). France: Association ACROE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 290(1038), 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2004). The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, V., & Kerr, E. (2018). Taking stock of engineering epistemology: Multi-Disciplinary perspectives. Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 685–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, E. (2014). Engineering differences between natural, social, and artificial kinds. In M. Franssen, P. Kroes, & P. E. Vermaas (Eds.), Artefact Kinds, Synthese Library Volume 365, 207–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, E. (2017). Evidence in Engineering. In D. Michelfelder, B. Newberry, & Q. Zhu (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Exploring boundaries, expanding connections (pp. 43–59). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, E., & Gelfert, A. (2014). The “Extendedness” of scientific evidence. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(12), 712–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, D. C., Kersten, D., & Yuille, A. (1996). Introduction: A Bayesian formulation of visual perception. In D. C. Knill & W. Richards (Eds.), Perception as Bayesian inference (pp. 1–21). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. (2000). The scope of perceptual knowledge. Philosophy, 75(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, F. A. (2004). The deep black sea: Observability and modality afloat. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(1), 61–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, A. (1985). Constructive empiricism and realism. In P. M. Churchland & C. A. Hooker (Eds.), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacherie, E. (1995). Do we see with microscopes? The Monist, 78(2), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2002). Motor and cognitive functions of the ventral premotor cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, N. C., & Stocker, A. A. (2010). Ambiguity and invariance: Two fundamental challenges for visual processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlick, M. (1935). Unanswerable questions. The Philosopher 8. http://www.thephilosopher.co.uk/2000/01/unanswerable-questions-1935.html.

  • Schwartz, R. (Ed.). (2004). Perception. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Drilling International, Inc. (2009). Basic survey manual. Paso Robles: Scientific Dilling International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serra, O. (1984). Fundamentals of well-log interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sur, M., & Kerr, E. (2019). Breaking the ground. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. http://societyandspace.org/2019/07/11/breaking-the-ground/.

  • van Fraasen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Eric Kerr

Authors
  1. Eric Kerr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Kerr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Literatur-, Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Birgit Beck

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Michael Kühler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kerr, E. (2020). Seeing the Turn: Microscopes, Gyroscopes, and Responsible Analysis in Petroleum Engineering. In: Beck, B., Kühler, M. (eds) Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility. Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie , vol 1. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-476-04895-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-476-04896-7

  • eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation