Why?

Yesterday while using a router to try and cut a hole in some wood the bit nearly came out at 26000 RPM. That would have been, as the professionals call it, "a big whoopsy."

Instead I get the pleasure of writing about it. In the engineering field we call this a "near-miss" report. We complete them in hopes of not having to fill out a "wasn't-a-miss" report next time.

So if I were to put on my engineer persona, I'd start the scientific method. I'd come up with a few hypotheses's as to why it came loose. Maybe it wasn't properly tightened. Maybe the wood was too tough. Maybe a beautiful butterfly came in through my window and nestled inside the motor. The potential guesses exist in an infinite multitude.

Whatever it was, the next step requires testing these guesses. That involves testing it again with different woods, thicknesses, bit sizes, tightnesses, wrenches used, and of course, in different environments such as with windows and without windows. Oh and do all of that in combination with one another.

And once you do all that and find a couple things that can go wrong, you can keep going. For instance, let's say this is a risk when the bit is too loose. Well, why was the bit loose? Is it too much humidity and it got moist? Did oil spill on it? Did I not tighten it all the way? And if I didn't tighten it all the way, why not? Was I distracted? Did my hand slip? Did the collet split?

Because remember, we want the ROOT cause, not the first layer cause. We want process changes and safety checks and preventative maintenance that reduces the risk earlier rather than later.

So what you end up with is an infinite number of layers of causality, and each layer contains an infinite number of potential best explanations. The only way this system could ever work is if our intuition of knowing which hypothesis to test - the pathway through the network of potential options - was highly accurate. (life tip: the best time to stop is when the report makes an official looking ppt slide)

But the scientific method is not the only way to find a root cause. It may tell you why it happened but not why it happened. For imagine it did hit me, and I died. My parents would also ask why it happened, and a loose collet wouldn't be the answer they're looking for. That's the second kind of why I want to know. The one with meaning.

Answering both whys relies on intuition.

I think I'll pick this back up next week...

-John Fitzpatrick

P.S.

Sorry to everyone who followed me on substack. I did not realize that had its own algorithmic feed. I thought it was just like a blog thing. I think algorithmic feeds will be the cigarettes of our generation, and as such, I want to keep my art far away from them.

With that being said, I've gone to the last bastion of hope for a better internet: personal websites. I pay $15 a month for this one, so I've decided to get my money's worth and will now be posting every Sunday. I hope to write about themes relevant to my art, show behind the scenes of the creative process, etc.

And of course, work on my writing. Cheers!