Chapter 8 Fitting Engineering into Philosophy

  Part I Reflections on Practice

Abstract

The abstract argues that traditional thinking and philosophical arrogance have solidified categories in a way that excludes engineering from philosophical discussions. It suggests that common sense is the key method of reasoning across all disciplines, including engineering. Therefore, it concludes that engineering, which exemplifies this type of reasoning, should be central to new philosophical considerations.

8.1 Introduction

The introduction argues that philosophy should encompass a broad understanding of how all things are interconnected, as proposed by American philosopher Wilfrid Sellars. It suggests that this approach would significantly revise philosophical thinking, making it more relevant to daily life and acknowledging the central role of engineering within philosophy. The main issue is that philosophers often create rigid distinctions and categories, leading to debates over their validity. A key flawed distinction highlighted is between the life of the mind and the life of action, which has contributed to philosophy's growing irrelevance.

" I not only like Sellars’ injunction here, I think that if we attempt to do as he says it will result in a significant revision in the nature of philosophical thinking, one that will bring philosophy back into our daily lives and bring engineering into the philosophical enterprise playing the central role it deserves. The problem with fitting engineering into the philosophical dialogue stems from the philosophy side of things. Philosophers are fond of drawing distinctions and creating categories they then carve into stone. More often than not, arguments abound over whether these are the right distinctions and categories, but sometimes things slip into place and just stay there. In this paper I will be looking at some of the things that have been in place too long and that need to be reevaluated."

The paper proposes a shift from seeking wisdom, which is rare, to striving for understanding, particularly in how we think. This understanding is seen as a step toward clarity and improvement. The author identifies as a Peircean pragmatist, emphasizing the importance of understanding the process of inquiry, not just its results. The reliability and implications of conclusions depend on how they are reached. The paper concludes by stating that the true measure of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom is their ability to lead to successful action, reflecting a pragmatic viewpoint.

8.2 Origins of the Topic

The author explains how teaching courses in the philosophy of technology led to the publication of their book "Thinking about Technology" in 1999. Among other things,this book posed a question comparing technology to science, asking if technology is what technologists do, similarly to how science is what scientists do. This led to an exploration of who technologists are, with engineers at a land grant university initially identified as a starting point. However, the author acknowledges that engineers are just a part of the broader category of technologists, which includes a variety of professions like information technologists, farmers, beekeepers, teachers, and scientists.

The research was also influenced by students' perspectives in a philosophy of technology course. Surprisingly, the students, including those studying engineering, objected to equating technologists solely with engineers. Non-engineering students perceived engineers as dull and unimaginative, questioning how they could be responsible for innovative technologies. Engineering students disagreed with being labeled just as technologists, arguing that their lives and interests, like music, were more diverse than the label suggested.

8.3 Common Sense and Feed-Back Loops

In section 8.3, the author discusses common sense and feedback loops in problem-solving across various disciplines, including engineering. The author refutes misconceptions about engineers, emphasizing that they think like everyone else and their fundamental thought process is the same as non-engineers. The only difference might be their dealing with materials that can be quantified. This understanding helps dissolve the distinction between intellectual and active life.

The problem-solving process is described as starting with decision-making, where one lays out alternative actions based on knowledge, values, and goals. If an initial solution fails, a feedback loop is used to reexamine these elements, starting with knowledge, then goals, and finally values. This process is universal and applies to various fields, from science to engineering.

The author cites examples like Galileo’s astronomical discoveries and the Tacoma Bay Bridge collapse to illustrate how new information can challenge existing knowledge and values. The fundamental approach to problem-solving is seen as universal; everyone is a problem solver, operating under certain constraints and using feedback loops to refine their understanding and solutions. This common sense approach is emphasized as a key element in rational decision-making and problem-solving in all areas of life.

8.4 Philosophical Issues

Section 8.4 of the text discusses how engineering relates to philosophy. The author argues that common sense problem-solving, fundamental to engineering, involves epistemology, value theory, and metaphysics, central areas of philosophy. This leads to philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge used in engineering, the values guiding engineering decisions, and the ontological status of artifacts created by engineers. These questions can be similarly applied to other fields like biology, art, architecture, and everyday life.

Here are some questions that immediately spring to mind, and I am sure there are others.

• What is the nature of the knowledge that engineers employ when solving engineering problems? (Is it different from ordinary knowledge and scientific knowledge?)

• What are the values at play in engineering decision-making (and are they different from ordinary values and the values at work in science)?

• What is the ontological status of the artefacts engineers create? 

The same questions could be asked of biologists, artists, architects, teachers and househusbands about their respective domains of problem solving.

• Is the knowledge a biologist requires for his research different from the knowledge a househusband needs to run a household successfully?

• Does an architect employ the same values a teacher does?

• Do all artistic creations exist in the same way? That is, does the performance of a ballet exist in the same way as a painting does? What is the ontological status of a clean house?

The author emphasizes that while different fields may involve different types of knowledge, goals, and values, the fundamental decision-making process is the same across all domains. People working in these fields may vary in personality and interests, but this doesn't define the nature of their thinking or their field.

The text also argues against stereotyping professionals based on their field. For example, engineering students might be labeled as "geeks," but such labels don't capture the full scope of their capabilities or predict their future roles. The author cites Wayne Clough, a civil engineer who became the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, as an example of the unpredictability and versatility of individuals in any field.

In summary, the text posits that philosophical analysis is applicable to all domains of human inquiry and that people should not be narrowly defined by their current roles or fields of study.

8.5 Some Speculations on How Engineering Got Left Out of Philosophy and the Possible Death of Philosophy

Section 8.5 speculates on why engineering has been traditionally excluded from philosophical discourse and considers the potential decline of philosophy's relevance. The author suggests that engineering, once part of the medieval 'media scientia', has been marginalized due to its association with quantification. However, the author notes that quantification alone can't be the reason for this exclusion, as other quantitatively intense fields like economics and natural sciences still receive philosophical attention.

The author identifies a deeper issue, somewhat related to C.P. Snow's concept of "Two Cultures," where a divide has emerged between the quantifiable and expressive worlds, with philosophy caught in the middle. With the rise of scientific successes and the professionalization of engineering in the 19th century, quantification became a marker of prestige, leading many fields, including parts of philosophy, to pursue a more scientific, quantitative approach. Philosophy shifted focus to solving smaller problems and engaging in the Linguistic Turn, which emphasized language analysis to solve or dissolve philosophical problems. These two trends (Focusing on smaller problems to cash in on Quantitative Approach and Linguistic Turn) led to philosophy's increasing irrelevance in common discourse.

The author argues that philosophy's focus on small, technical problems and language analysis detracted from its engagement with real-world issues and human concerns. Philosophers like Nicholas Rescher and Wilfrid Sellars attempted to counteract this trend by championing systematic explanatory schemes that reinsert human beings and practical concerns into philosophical inquiry.

The author concludes that American culture's streak of anti-intellectualism, historical developments, and the perception of engineers as anti-intellectual contributed to the exclusion of engineering from philosophical consideration. To revive philosophy and make it relevant and useful again, the author suggests focusing on people, their actions, and real-world problems, including those tackled by engineers.

8.6 Conclusion

In the conclusion, the author emphasizes that engineers are people just like anyone else, thinking and problem-solving in the same way. They suggest that engineering, as a human process aimed at improving the world, is a crucial part of our lives. Therefore, studying engineering - including the knowledge engineers have, how they acquire it, what they do and why, and the impact of their creations - is vital to understanding how everything in the world is interconnected, aligning with the core goal of philosophy.