Chapter 10 Debunking Contemporary Myths Concerning Engineering

 Part II Reflections on Principles

Abstract

The abstract describes the paper's objective to debunk myths about engineering, particularly the common misconception that engineering is simply applied science. The paper employs a methodical approach, using numerous direct quotations from classical texts and living experts, as well as extensive quotations, images, and commentary from credible sources such as documentaries produced by the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, and information from the Smithsonian Encyclopedia. This approach ensures factual accuracy and expert validation. The paper concludes by examining an archetypical engineering project and introducing the earliest known engineer in history, providing a direct look into his contributions.

10.1 Introduction

The introduction to the paper highlights the recent increase in conferences and articles aimed at developing a Philosophy of Engineering. These gatherings bring together philosophers and engineers, experts in their fields with often contrasting worldviews, which has led to various myths about engineering from both sides.

The paper aims to address some misconceptions about engineering, as observed in international conferences, from an engineer's perspective. The author expresses hope that in the future, a philosopher might similarly address misconceptions engineers have about philosophy, benefiting both disciplines and the development of a Philosophy of Engineering.

The paper is structured into two parts: firstly, it discusses a commonly cited definition of the engineering method in literature, and secondly, it proposes an analysis of contemporary myths about engineering. During this exploration, the paper introduces the earliest known engineer in history, examines his work, and offers a direct look at his legacy.

10.2 Definition of Engineering Method

Section 10.2 defines the engineering method, emphasizing that engineering should be understood as a behavior or activity, a creative process that an individual undertakes. It argues against common, arbitrary definitions of engineering, instead proposing a definition focused on method and action.

The section references a quotation from Sir William Fairbain, a notable 19th-century engineer, who describes engineering as a mental endeavor to devise solutions for challenging tasks. This quote supports the idea that engineering is about the mental process of problem-solving.

The paper offers a revised and improved definition of the engineering method, frequently cited in literature: “The engineering method is the use of state-of-the-art heuristics to create the best change in an uncertain situation within the available resources.” This definition underscores the use of advanced problem-solving techniques (heuristics) to optimize outcomes in uncertain conditions, considering the limitations of available resources.

Due to space constraints, the paper focuses on two terms from this definition: 'state of the art' and 'resources.' For a more detailed exploration, the paper references "Discussion of the Method: conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving" (Koen 2003), abbreviated as DOM, as a foundational source.

10.2.1 State of the Art

Section 10.2.1 discusses the concept of "state of the art" (sota) in engineering, an essential term in the definition of the engineering method. The state of the art refers to the current collection or set of heuristics (problem-solving methods) used in engineering design at a specific time. This concept is visually represented in Figure 10.1 of the paper.

The state of the art for an individual engineer defines and limits the range of possibilities in their engineering design. It's not only applicable to individual engineers but can also extend to groups of engineers, including those from different nations. For example, one can compare the state of the art among French, Japanese, and American engineers or between engineers from developed and developing countries. This comparison can highlight differences in engineering approaches and capabilities.

Additionally, the concept of the state of the art is significant in the context of technological transfer, where appropriate heuristics are transferred from one nation to another. In the realm of engineering education, transforming the state of the art of a freshman engineering student into that of a competent, practicing engineer is a key goal. This transformation involves updating and expanding the student's set of heuristics to match current professional standards.

10.2.2 Limitation by Resources

Section 10.2.2 focuses on the concept of resource limitations and their impact on engineering problems. The definition of an engineering problem includes the consideration of resources, which define and limit the scope of the problem. However, identifying the true resources can be challenging due to common misconceptions about resource types and their efficient allocation.

An example from a Science Channel documentary by geologist Ian Steward illustrates the influence of local resources (specifically rocks) on engineering design. Steward compares the construction of enclosed spaces in different civilizations, showing how local geology shaped architectural designs:

Karnak Temple, Egypt: Built with sedimentary rock (sandstone), which is strong in compression but weak in tension. This necessitated massive, closely spaced columns to support the structure, resulting in a crowded, claustrophobic space.

Parthenon, Greece: Constructed with stronger metamorphic rock (marble), allowing for slenderer columns and a more open, airy space.

Pantheon, Rome: Built with very strong igneous rock, enabling the use of concrete and the architectural innovation of the arch. This allowed for a spacious room with a roof supported by the walls rather than visible columns.

These examples demonstrate how the available resources, in this case, indigenous rocks, influence the state of the art (sota) and ultimately the final design in engineering projects. The limitations imposed by resources dictate the range of possible solutions and impact the design process significantly.

10.3 Debunking Contemporary Myths

Section 10.3 of the paper aims to debunk specific myths about engineering. These include the claims that:

• The previously discussed definition of the engineering method is vacuous or lacking substance.
• Engineering is a relatively recent human activity.
• Engineering is simply applied science.
• Engineering is merely a process of trial and error.
• Engineering artifacts must be concrete objects that persist over time.

The paper will examine and challenge each of these assertions to provide a clearer understanding of what engineering truly entails.

10.3.1 Myth: The Defi nition of Engineering Method in Terms of Heuristics Is Vacuous

Section 10.3.1 addresses the myth that defining the engineering method in terms of heuristics is vacuous or meaningless. This concern was raised at a recent fPET conference, questioning the substance of this definition. The criticism suggests that the definition is so broad that it could apply to any decision-making process, such as placing a bet on a horse race, thus rendering it vacuous.

The response to this myth involves clarifying the nature of the term "state of the art" (sota). The paper illustrates this with Figure 10.3, which shows a large, irregularly shaped sota encompassing two overlapping subsets labeled as "sota|Engineering, t" and "sota|Daily Double, t". While there may be some overlap between the heuristics used in engineering and those used in placing a horse racing bet, they are not identical. The key lies in defining the specific heuristics appropriate for each domain, done heuristically. We can anticipate that there could be other sotas representing the method of the novelist, artist, flautist, and so on. Each would appear within the overall sota with varying amounts of overlap.

The paper references further discussion of this topic in the philosophical journal "The Monist" (Koen 2009) and in the book "Discussion of the Method" (DOM, Koen 2003). The critique's insightfulness is acknowledged, leading to the notion of a universal method as defined in the cited references. Properly understood, the definition of engineering as the use of state-of-the-art heuristics to create optimal change in uncertain situations within available resources is considered robust and not vacuous.

10.3.2 Myth: Engineering Is a Relative New Human Activity

Section 10.3.2 addresses the myth that engineering is a relatively new human activity. This misconception was notably discussed at an international Philosophy of Engineering conference, where philosophers and engineers had contrasting views on whether ancient civilizations had engineers.

The paper argues that engineering has been a significant aspect of human activity since ancient times, using historical evidence and expert opinions:

Sir William Fairbain's Definition: Challenging the notion that engineering is linked to engines, the paper cites Fairbain’s definition that emphasizes engineering as a skilled, practical problem-solving activity.

Engineering in Ancient Civilizations: The paper presents evidence of engineering in the oldest known civilizations like Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley, where concrete engineering artifacts exist.

Documentary Evidence: Various documentaries, like "What the Ancients Did For Us" by the BBC, showcase engineering achievements in these ancient civilizations, such as sewerage systems in ancient India, the Sumerian Ziggurat in Mesopotamia, and monumental structures in Egypt.

Expert Testimonies: Experts like Dr. Kent Weeks and Dr. Zahi Hawass affirm the significant role of engineering in ancient Egypt, with Hawass stating that Egyptians were the inventors of engineering.

Historical Monuments as Evidence: The paper points to colossal monuments, temples, and fortifications in Egypt as further proof of ancient engineering.

In conclusion, the paper refutes the myth that engineering is a new human activity. It asserts that engineering has been a part of human existence since ancient times, as evidenced by the engineering artifacts and expert opinions from the earliest known civilizations. This conclusion is supported by a variety of credible sources, including professional engineers, documentaries, and archaeological findings.

10.3.3 Myth: Engineering Is Applied Science

Section 10.3.3 addresses the widespread myth that "Engineering is applied science." This definition, commonly cited in various media and even by some engineers, is challenged in the paper.

The Engineering Council for Professional Development (ECPD) around 1932 defined engineering as the creative application of scientific principles in designing and developing structures, machines, and processes. However, the paper argues that this definition is not accurate; in fact, it’s historically impossible. To illustrate this, the paper references the emergence of writing in Greece around 750 BC and notes that science, as defined by the works of the Ionian Philosophers, appeared later in the sixth century BC.

Significant early examples of engineering, predating the birth of science, are highlighted. For instance, the city of Memphis in Egypt, founded around 3000 BC, showcased engineering feats like fortifications and battlements. This historical evidence shows that engineering existed millennia before the emergence of science.

The paper suggests that while modern engineering (sota| Modern, t) includes science, modern tools, and contemporary design techniques, ancient engineering (sota| Egypt, t) involved different heuristics and skills. Therefore, engineering as a whole cannot be confined to the application of science.

It's also noted that even in modern times, engineering often goes beyond the realm of known science, as seen in projects like the Mars rover or deep-water oil exploration, where conditions are uncertain, and science is used more as a guide than a definitive framework.

Finally, the paper disputes the idea of engineering as applied mathematics, citing historical mathematical texts like the Rhind and Moscow papyri, which show that the mathematics used in ancient times was more heuristic and less certain than what is used in engineering today.

In conclusion, the paper asserts that the claim that engineering is applied science is an anachronism and not an accurate portrayal of the field.

10.3.4 Myth: Engineering Artefacts Must Be Concrete Objects

Section 10.3.4 addresses the myth that engineering artifacts must be tangible, physical objects. This myth was debated at a conference where some philosophers insisted that an artifact must be a physical object, while the engineering practice indicates otherwise.

Key points in debunking this myth include:

ECPD Definition: The Engineering Council for Professional Development's definition of engineering includes processes as outcomes of engineering design, contrary to the belief that only physical objects qualify as engineering artifacts.

Etymology of 'Artifact': The word 'artifact' originates from Latin, meaning “anything made by human art,” which encompasses both physical objects and processes.

Operations Research: A field of engineering that specifically deals with designing operational processes, like assembly lines and supply chain management, further supports the idea that processes are engineering artifacts.

Historical Examples:

Assembly Line in Ancient Egypt: Ancient Egyptians used an assembly-line technique for tomb paintings, indicating sophisticated process design.

Empire State Building vs. Great Pyramid: The contrast in available heuristics between the construction of the Empire State Building and the Great Pyramid of Egypt highlights the significance of process strategies in engineering.

Engineering as Process Design: The paper argues that the design of strategies to achieve specific purposes has always been part of engineering, with processes being as important as the physical artifacts themselves.

Documentaries as Evidence: Documentaries like "Engineering an Empire: Egypt" illustrate ancient processes, showing that engineering artifacts don’t have to be concrete objects but can include strategies and methods developed to achieve engineering goals.

In conclusion, the paper establishes that engineering artifacts include not only physical objects but also the processes and strategies developed in engineering practice. This broader definition aligns with historical practices and the nature of engineering as a discipline.

10.3.5 Myth: Engineering Is Trial and Error

Section 10.3.5 addresses the myth that engineering primarily consists of trial and error. While it acknowledges that engineers do make errors, sometimes significant ones like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940, the paper argues that defining engineering as a process of trial and error is inaccurate and misleading.

Key arguments against this myth include:

Number of Engineers: There are a large number of engineers worldwide, with the U.S. alone reportedly having over 1.5 million engineers in 2006. The daily multitude of engineering decisions made globally suggests that the majority of these are not errors.

Redesigns in Engineering: It is estimated that about 90% of all engineering designs are actually redesigns or minor modifications of previous designs. This indicates a process of refinement and improvement rather than mere trial and error.

Engineering as Risk-Taking: Engineering inherently involves creativity and stepping into the unknown, but it's also grounded in the established state of the art. This combination of creativity and grounding reduces the risk of error.

Risk Management Heuristics: Modern engineering includes various heuristics developed over millennia to minimize risks. Examples include making small changes, allowing for retreat, developing projects through successive approximations, focusing resources on weak links, and conducting feasibility studies.

In conclusion, the paper argues that characterizing modern engineering as trial and error is an inadequate and misleading representation. Engineering involves risk management and creativity within a framework of established knowledge and practices, far beyond mere trial and error.

10.4 Conclusions

Section 10.4 concludes the paper by summarizing its examination of five common myths about engineering and then providing a positive, unifying characterization of engineering based on the construction and evolution of Egyptian Pyramids.

Debunking Myths: The paper addressed and refuted these myths:

• The definition of engineering as heuristics is not vacuous.
• Engineering is not a recent human activity but dates back to ancient civilizations.
• Engineering is not merely applied science.
• Engineering is not characterized by trial and error.
• Engineering artifacts are not limited to concrete, physical objects but include processes and strategies.

Archetypical Engineering Project - Egyptian Pyramids: The evolution of the Egyptian Pyramids, from simple mounds to complex structures like the Great Pyramid, demonstrates the essence of engineering. This includes the use of state-of-the-art heuristics, resource management, risk-taking, and the balance of technical and aesthetic considerations.

Key Insights on Engineering:

• Engineering predates the formal development of science.
• The engineering method involves using the best available heuristics within resource constraints.
• Engineering designs evolve over time, building on previous knowledge and techniques.
• The discipline requires creative problem-solving, not just following predefined scientific principles.

First Known Engineer - Imhotep: The paper introduces Imhotep, the first known engineer by name, credited with designing the Step Pyramid. His work exemplifies the early practice of engineering, combining creativity with practical skills and knowledge.

Purpose of the Paper: The goal is to aid the development of a Philosophy of Engineering by clarifying misconceptions and providing a more accurate understanding of what engineering entails.

The paper advocates for a greater appreciation of engineering's historical depth and its role in shaping human civilization, highlighting the need for a collaborative effort between philosophers and engineers to develop a comprehensive understanding of the field.