Chapter 11 The Engineer’s Identity Crisis: Homo Faber or Homo Sapiens?

 

Abstract

The abstract discusses an identity crisis among engineers, stemming from questions about their influence, role, and knowledge. This crisis touches on three key philosophical areas: ethics, ontology (the nature of being), and epistemology (the nature of knowledge). The abstract suggests that philosophy is highly relevant to engineering, addressing the tensions and relationships between philosophy and technology, engineering and science, and theory and practice.

Key points include:

• Engineers should be proud of their societal contributions but also be mindful of the potential negative impacts of technology.
• Engineers are portrayed as holistic managers who deal with complex real-world problems, grounded in a core of scientific knowledge.
• While engineering knowledge is mostly practical, there is a need to formalize this practice both conceptually and technically.
• The abstract concludes that engineers, as makers (homo faber), also have qualities that align them with thinkers (homo sapiens), placing them high on the scale of intellectual and practical ability.

Overall, the abstract advocates for a balanced view of engineering, recognizing both its practical and intellectual dimensions and its broader impacts on society.

11.1 Do Engineers Have an Identity Crisis?

The section addresses the identity crisis potentially faced by engineers, rooted in three key areas:

Crisis of Influence: This crisis relates to the societal impact of engineers. Historically associated with progress and the upliftment of humanity, engineers are now also seen as contributors to technological and environmental crises. This dilemma falls under the study of ethics, which examines actions, motivations, and impacts.

Crisis of Role: The role crisis emerges from the dichotomy between the scientific background of engineering students and the practical, managerial nature of engineering practice. The question here is whether engineers are primarily scientists or managers, with the risk of being neither. This pertains to ontology, the philosophical study of being and roles within society.

Crisis of Knowledge: This crisis overlaps with the role crisis and concerns the nature of engineering knowledge. While engineering education is heavily theoretical, engineering practice is largely practical, relying on established procedures and engineering judgment. This raises questions about the nature of engineering knowledge – whether it is theoretical or practical – and how it differs from the knowledge of a technician or craftsman. This crisis relates to epistemology, the study of knowledge.

The tensions and issues in the broader framework encompassing engineering and philosophy are illustrated in the section through two figures (Figs. 11.1 and 11.2). These figures show debates and tensions within technology, with connections between entities focused on understanding (homo sapiens) and transformation (homo faber). The identity crises faced by engineers can be linked to the fundamental question of whether an engineer is more of a homo faber (maker) or homo sapiens (thinker). This duality creates the angst and sense of crisis in self-worth and social value for engineers.

11.2 The Engineer’s Influence: More Harm than Good?

This section addresses the question of whether engineers do more harm than good, framed within the context of the relationship between philosophy and technology.

Perceptions of Technology's Influence: Some philosophers argue that technology can be harmful, contrasting with the humanizing influence of philosophy and liberal arts. The negative impacts of technology are categorized into hazardous technologies (like nuclear technology), promotion of injustice, adverse sociological impacts (e.g., screen time reducing family interactions), and psychological impacts (e.g., overemphasis on technique).

Counterarguments: Engineers like Samuel Florman highlight technology's benefits, such as improvements in transportation, health, and overall living standards. Florman suggests that engineering work can bring existential joy and humanization, not just through engagement with the arts but by liberating people from manual labor and drudgery.

Technology for Rectifying Its Ills: Modern movements aim to use technology itself to address its negative effects, like using the internet for greater knowledge access or carbon sequestration to mitigate fossil fuel burning.

Historical Perspectives on Technology and Engineering: Historically, utilitarian pursuits were seen as inferior to 'pure speculation' in both Western and Eastern cultures. However, modern university education and research have mobilized technology for wealth creation and problem-solving.

Engineers' Status in Society: Despite technology's pervasive influence, an 'educated' person is often still viewed as someone knowledgeable in literature and culture rather than in technical fields. This perception might contribute to engineers feeling undervalued in terms of their intellectual contributions.

Engineers as Homo Faber and Homo Sapiens: While engineers might take pride in being homo faber (makers, doers), there's a perceived inferiority in their status as homo sapiens (thinkers, intellectuals). The challenge for engineers is to balance their role as effective creators and problem-solvers with an awareness of the broader implications and responsibilities of their work in society.

In summary, the section argues that while engineers and technology have been criticized for their negative impacts, they also provide significant benefits and improvements to human life. The challenge for engineers is to embrace their role as creators (homo faber) while also recognizing and addressing the ethical, social, and philosophical implications of their work.

11.3 The Engineer’s Role: Scientist or Manager?

This section discusses the role of engineers in the context of whether they are more like scientists or managers, by examining engineering design as a reflection of engineering practice.

Engineering Design: The core of engineering design involves scientific knowledge encapsulated within practical guidelines and heuristics, such as safety margins, design philosophy, and idealizations. This process requires making decisions about real-world scenarios and adapting them to scientific models.

Example of Engineering Complexity: A simple example is the analysis of a beam supported between two columns. The process involves idealizing the beam, applying safety factors, and considering restraint moments, illustrating the complexity beyond mere scientific calculations.

Complexity in Engineering: Engineering complexity is not just about the abundance of detail (complicated), but richness in structure (complex). This complexity arises from layers in the decision-making process, uncertainty (fuzziness, incompleteness, and randomness), and the need for abductive reasoning to find causes for observed or desired effects.

Engineers as Managers: Given the complexity and the necessity to manage processes involving people, procedures, and products, engineers act more like holistic managers than specialized scientists. They must manage quality, safety, and economy in their projects.

Scientific Foundation: Despite the managerial aspect, engineering practice is grounded in scientific knowledge. Engineers use a combination of mathematics, rules of thumb, and their judgment, depending on the situation.

Conclusion: Engineers are characterized as holistic managers who deal with real-world complexity, underpinned by a core of scientific knowledge. This places them as homo faber (makers or doers) in the broader sense of making things happen, and also high on the scale of homo sapiens (wise beings) due to the intellectual challenges they face and the wisdom required in their work.

In summary, the engineer's role is a blend of management and scientific knowledge, requiring them to tackle complex, real-world problems with a mix of practicality and scientific understanding. This role situates engineers as both practical creators and intellectual problem solvers.

11.4 The Engineer’s Knowledge: Theoretical or Practical?

This section explores the nature of engineering knowledge, addressing whether it is predominantly theoretical or practical, and how this impacts the identity and role of engineers.

Theory vs. Practice in Engineering Education: Engineering programs are typically dominated by theoretical subjects to ground students in scientific principles. However, in practice, engineers often rely more on practical knowledge like 'rules of thumb', 'codes of practice', and 'engineering judgment'. This blend suggests that engineering knowledge is fundamentally practical but based on theoretical foundations.

Heidegger’s Example of a Carpenter: Heidegger's example illustrates that in routine work, practical knowledge prevails. However, when unexpected problems arise, engineers need a strong theoretical background to devise solutions. This underlines the necessity of theoretical training for engineers.

Interplay Between Theory and Practice: There's an ongoing debate about whether theoretical knowledge should precede practical applications in engineering education. Some argue that practice is a rich source of theoretical insights, especially in understanding the engineering design process.

Reflection on Practice: The concept of 'reflective practice', where professionals reflect on their actions to gain insights, is becoming increasingly recognized. This approach suggests that practice-based knowledge, which is often seen as 'just common sense', has substantial intellectual value.

Formalizing Practice-Based Knowledge: One significant challenge for practice-based knowledge is its lack of formalism, which can undermine its perceived value, especially in academic settings. Efforts to formalize and systematize practical knowledge could enhance the intellectual status of engineering practice.

In conclusion, while engineering knowledge is mostly practical in nature, there is a significant interplay between theory and practice. Efforts to formalize practical knowledge could elevate the status of engineering on the scale of homo sapiens, recognizing engineers as not only makers (homo faber) but also thinkers and problem solvers.

11.5 Formalizing Practice

This section discusses the formalization of engineering practice to enhance the engineer's image as a knowledgeable thinker (homo sapiens) and an agent of transformation (homo faber). The formalization needs to occur at both the conceptual and technical levels.

Conceptual Level Formalization with Systems Approaches: Systems approaches offer a way to formalize engineering practice at a conceptual level. However, creating a focused theory for such broad applications is challenging. Various frameworks have been proposed, like the reflective practice loop, Design-Build-Operate loops, Senge's management models, and Checkland and Scholes' CATWOE template. These frameworks aim to reflect on real-world complexity and interdependencies, rather than just simulating or replicating them. They help in understanding the full scope of engineering projects and mitigating unintended consequences.

Technical Level Formalization with Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI, or Knowledge Processing, can formalize practice-based knowledge at a technical level. AI techniques like neural networks, case-based reasoning, and interval probability theory can capture and process practical knowledge and experience, offering a structured way to approach engineering problems. This approach provides a formalism for practice-based knowledge, similar to the role of mathematics in supporting the scientific method.

Philosophical Grounding for Practice-Based Knowledge: The paper also provides a philosophical grounding for practice-based knowledge by drawing from the works of philosophers Michael Polanyi and Martin Heidegger. This grounding emphasizes the value of tacit knowledge and experiential learning in engineering.

In conclusion, by formalizing engineering practice at both conceptual and technical levels, engineers can strengthen their identity as both makers and thinkers. Systems approaches and AI can provide the necessary structure and depth to capture the complexity and richness of engineering practice, elevating its status in both professional and academic contexts.

11.6 Conclusions

The study examining the tensions between technology and philosophy, engineering and science, and practice and theory helps clarify the identity crisis faced by engineers in the realms of ethics, ontology, and epistemology:

Technology’s Impact on Society: Engineers should take pride in their societal contributions while being keenly aware of the potential negative impacts of technology. They should view themselves as agents promoting both humanization and transformation.

Engineers as Managers or Scientists: Engineers should identify as holistic managers with a foundation in science. Engineering, being broader and richer than science, requires managing complex real-world problems, and integrating various parts into a coherent whole.

Nature of Engineering Knowledge: While practical knowledge dominates in engineering practice, theoretical knowledge forms the educational backbone, providing a fallback in complex scenarios. Engineers should recognize the theoretical aspects inherent in practical knowledge and work towards formalizing both practice and theory.

Systems Thinking for Conceptual Formalization: Adopting comprehensive systems thinking frameworks can help formalize engineering approaches at a conceptual level.

Artificial Intelligence for Technical Formalization: Utilizing AI and knowledge processing tools can formalize practice-based knowledge.

Engineer’s Position on the Homo Sapiens Scale: Although primarily seen as homo faber (man the maker), the study argues that engineers also rank high on the homo sapiens (wise man) scale due to their complex decision-making and problem-solving abilities. This contrasts with the ancient view of Archimedes as reported by Plutarch, where the making aspect was undervalued compared to pure speculation.