On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
This quote comes up whenever Babbage is mentioned among geeks, but the common interpretation of its significance may be wrong. The quote is assumed to illustrate the hardship of a genius communicating with a society of dunces, but I think the problem may have been the reverse. The fact is that Babbage was a terrible explainer and the questions put to him may have been sensible extrapolation on what he said. I came to this opinion largely from seeing how much effort Ada Lovelace had to put into getting Babbage to clarify his ideas. It seems that he truly could not "apprehend the kind of confusion" that his explanations caused in others.
I think that this passage and various other parts of the book are a particularly English form of understated humour, where Babbage is playing up his public perception as a frustrated genius in order to add a little levity to what might otherwise be fairly dry writing.
Plenty of other sections of the book hint at this. As an example, search for the word "philosopher" throughout the book. We get section headings musing about whether a Philosopher would deny being descended from Cain, quotes attributed to a recently-scalloped oyster who was also a philosopher writing in its shell, a sequence of passages titled "The Philosopher writes a Ballet —Its rehearsal —Its high moral tone —Its rejection on the ground of the probable combustion of the Opera-house", and so on and so on. Does Babbage consider himself a philosopher? Maybe (probably, even -- he clearly had a good opinion of himself in any case), but he is also well aware of how the public perceives such people.
In other words, Babbage is doing a "bit" and playing with the public perception of him and of scientists of the time (and even now) -- i.e. as being so removed from the real world that they not only can't explain something, but can't even understand why they can't explain it. Which is an understandable thing to do, particularly if you're a mathematician and engineer writing an autobiography for a lay audience.
This doesn't mean that he was actually good at explaining anything, of course, or that he wasn't in fact a frustrated genius. It just means that he was aware of how he was perceived and was capable of a little humour at his own expense.
Haha yeah this reminds me of that recent Google congressional hearing where the only thing they accomplished was showing how little the questioners understand anything at all about tech.
>if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Volkswagen emissions software scandal comes to mind.
I kinda doubt that. The US Mint manufactures a ton of commemorative coins in denominations and materials (e.g. silver dollars, gold $5, etc) that have no relationship to the circulating coinage. As long as there’s an audience for it, I expect they will keep launching products.
Babbage's eccentricities and loopier thoughts were always more interesting to me than his writing about the things he's better known for. I read this many years ago but for some reason the part that stuck with me the most was a surprisingly long stretch articulating all the different ways in which organ grinder monkeys were public menaces. His loathing of street musicians was comical but the degree of spite specifically reserved for organ grinder monkeys took it to the next level.
It's been a while since I read it, but I definitely got the sense that that was very much how he felt and he wasn't playing it up for comedy. He wasn't the most likable or relatable guy but he certainly was passionate.
I'm a bit conflicted. On one hand, it is a sin that it still hasn't been built! And it must be powered by a literal steam engine!
On the other hand, Babbage never really finished the Analytical Engine. It was always in pre-alpha. In a sense, there is no Analytical Engine. Only a lifetime of sketches for various parts and extensive commentary on how the various parts might fit together. An actual implementation requires making a lot of hard decisions, and basically inventing a fair bit as well.
It's clear the Plan 28 folks appreciate all this, of course. They've appropriately started with a complete review of the literature:
> With the first-pass inspection of the manuscript archive complete, attention has turned to analysis and interpretation, and organising the findings to aid navigation. Babbage shed versions of the design as it developed in the form of ‘Plans’ – large ‘systems drawings’ which serve as developmental staging posts – the main ones of which number Plan 1 through to Plan 28.
This might hint at why Babbage ultimately failed, really. He was a tinkerer and he didn't commit to a design. It was always provisional. When he ran into a minor hitch, or had another good idea, he would go back to the drawing board and start over. If he had just committed and scaled up the original, much simpler and fully-designed difference engine he had been contracted for, he might just have got the funding to continue more theoretical and larger-scale work with thinking machines.
This is a good read documenting technology history in the first half of the 19th century. Babbage drew on his experiences trying to source manufactured parts for his Analytical Engine. At the time manufacturers just could not meet the specifications (tolerances) for the many mass-produced parts the project required.
I think by the end of Babbage's life the parts could have been manufactured, but by then both Babbage and his financiers had moved on.
