Final Report: Conundrum Solved?

The Team Outlook
In trying to determine exactly what the contents of the box are, we believe that we have used the most efficient methods. Due to this we have a lot of confidence, not necessarily in what the box contains, but in the methods that we have used. As a team, there were rarely disagreements in procedure and this made for easy progress. However, one recent argument took place because our team members did not agree on how to go about approaching the contents. As mentioned before, we believe that there is a box within the observable box. The complexities that this created dealt with the obstructions (or lack there of). These complexities were not agreed on at first and it made it difficult to continue on without resolving this issue.

Developing Evidence
Even though we have confidence in our methods, we were still able to think "outside of the box" every so often. This entails that we were able to criticize our old methods and establish new, more efficient ones, thus building on our level of team confidence and procedure. We developed a few new techniques for measuring the weight distribution and how the objects contained interact with each other. We believe that these techniques were helpful in not only deciding what the larger-content items were, but actually coming up with an idea of exactly what all of the obscure smaller items are.

So, what's in the box?
We believe that there is a box within the contents of the observable box. This box is the same width and depth as the outside box, but only about two thirds as tall. On top of the internal box, we believe there is a book wrapped in an envelope, or paper of some kind (due to the weight shift, and consistency of placement when the box is overturned). We believe that there is a key or small, flat metallic object on the outside of the internal box. Further, we think that the internal box contains a plethora of small objects: pebbles and small rocks, loose change, metallic objects (perhaps jax), and the ball from the game of jax (due to the sound of a small rolling ball). The sound of the items shifting in the internal box is a bit unusual, however. Because of this, we believe that there is some sort of padding or soft, coiled object that interferes with objects that are moving around.

The end.

Second Report: Are Our Observations Misplaced?

After talking over some ideas of how we can improve our methods with the Box Project, we have reached a semi-intrusive problem. If, as has been mentioned in lecture, our understanding is seemingly imperative for a "good" explanation, then how is it that we will ever be able to complete the assignment? Obviously we are not accepting this as the solution to the problem, or anywhere close, but rather trying to grasp just how far we can hope to get with this.

If we are not able to understand what is in the box, then what good is our explanation? There is no knowledge based evidence for its contents, so our conclusions seem to be belief-based thus far. In applying this situation to recent lecture, it looks as if we have come in contact with the Gettier Problem. Our current belief is that there is another box within the observable box. This may prove to be false. However, it is important to note that there could be a box within the observable box, but a box we have not accounted for. Perhaps a much smaller box is within the contents that we have no concept of. According to this problem, it does not seem that we have any "understanding" of the contents at all. Perhaps there is a large box-shaped piece of paper in place of what we thought was a secondary box. Believing a box is within the contents must be paired with the truth of the actual contents. Our beliefs are misplaced and it seems, as of right now, we can not be quite certain.

Due to this being the majority of our talk on the project, the IBE model has not come up much. We believe that it is important to use, but we first need to clarify our observations and intentions.

First Report: Initial Observations

Our first few steps, when we were able to start observing the box, involved determining some of the physical characteristics of the box. We got a rough idea of the weight of the box, how the weight of the contents shifted, the sound of the contents shifting, and the overall feel of the box. In practicing these techniques, we were able to determine that there is more than one item in the box. There seems to be another box within the observable box, and further more small and hard pieces (most likely made of a metallic substance). In coming to an agreement of what types of things could be in the box, it seems that the group may start to have some disagreements. This can most easily be applied to the fact that both members have had different experiences and interactions with particular objects. This can lead to generalizing the sound of the small objects to be completely different things. It is important to keep all bias aside in order to develop the most logical theory and explanation.

The group is relying heavily on inductive practices so far. They are relating the sound, weight, and feel of the box with past observations in order to make the most sense of it. This could be a dangerous tactic, so they believe they must establish what levels of probability. These levels will help in determining what the possibilities of the box contents could be, and keeping the most logical answers in mind.

All of the observational tactics of the group seem to be building on each other in order to more refine the theory put forward. This is a prime example of a "Kuhnian Puzzle-Solving" technique. Using smaller details of an instance can help to refine generalities and add a newer, more beneficial level of description and understanding. They are using new-found knowledge in order to more accurately shape and build their theories. They realize that they must be careful in doing this, however. It is most imperative to use new knowledge to not only build on a current theory, but to determine if the present theory remains valid at all. This distinction can be made in placing relevance on the observations. In determining what data is most relevant to the overall task, the group is then able to see if this data supports the current theory, or calls for a theory refinement (or a new theory altogether).