Thoughts of a Reflective Engineer on Volume 9: Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 9, Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences

Thoughts of a Reflective Engineer on Volume 9: Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 9, Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences - Presentation Transcript

Thoughts of a Reflective Engineer on Vol. 9Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 9: Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences
David E. Goldberg
Illinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, Illinois 61801 USA
deg@illinois.edu

What’s a Nice Civil Engineer Doing
On a panel like this?
Asked to review a handbook: AnthonieMeijers (Ed.) (in press). Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 9: Philosophy of Technology & Engineering Sciences, Elsevier.
Co-Chair of Workshop on Philosophy & Engineering in 2007 and 2008.
Viewed it as an opportunity to continue my philosophy education.
But mindful that I am no expert, or even qualified to offer critical review.
So as engineer standing in front of SPT had certain concerns.

Was I Philosophically Ready?
Or “advanced” to dangerous?
Was I clueless?

Would I Be Considered Alien Life Form?
Of one kind
Or another

Or Possibly as Bothersome to Baby Whales?

Real Concern: How to Frame the Review?
Dimensions of Problem:
Need to reflect on volume.
Stay within expertise as engineer.
Add to growing dialog between philosophers and engineers.
Adopt perspective of engineer consumer of philosophy of technology and engineering science in opening of 21st century.
Connection to Diane Michelfelder’s remarks about APA: “Looking for love in all the wrong places.”

Why Philosophy? Why Now? What Needed?
Why might engineers be interested in philosophy now?
What will they be interested in knowing & doing?
How does the volume help answer these questions and needs?
What else might have been useful?
Ways the volume will benefit my taking philosophy seriously.

Copyright © 2007 by David E. Goldberg
Why Philosophy? Why Now?Engineering Responds to the Crisis of a Creative Age
WPE-2007: Why are such strange bedfellows gathering now?
Philosophers
Humanists
Contemplative
Articulate
Abstract
Like to argue
Reflection in itself
Logical
Engineers
Technologists
Action-oriented
Linguistically naïve
Concrete
Like to agree
Reflection as instrumental
Logical
SPT 2009 theme of Converging Technologies answers question in part.

Copyright © 2007 by David E. Goldberg
Response to Crisis of Creative Age
Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions response to scientific crisis:
“I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their fields. Some have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.…But that is not to say that the search for assumptions cannot be an effective way to weaken the grip of a tradition upon the mind and to suggest the basis for a new one.”
Creative era of early 21st century is disorienting to engineers as early 20th century was disorienting to scientists.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996)

Part VI. Philosophical Issues in Engineering DisciplinesSven OveHansson (Ed.)
Tumult of times reflection in selections.
Contents:
Philosophy of Architecture
Philosophy of Agricultural Technology
Philosophy of Medical Technology
Philosophy of Biotechnology
Philosophy of Computing and Information Technology, Philip Brey and Johnny HartzSøraker
Interesting choices: Two of the big three engineering Os.
Queries: Architecture? Nano & philosophy of traditional disciplines? Phil engineering & tech education?

BreyandSøraker: Computing & IT
Broad coverage and well organized.
Diverse conceptions of computer science.
Inclusion of computational philosophy (Conversation with Mark Bedau).
Up-to-date coverage of agents, artificial intelligence and artificial life.
Quibble: no mention of Genetic algorithms & evolutionary computation.
Coverage of internet, virtual worlds, computer-mediated communication.
Recommend as worthy read to my CS & GA/EC colleagues.
Delightful & useful addition to the field.

Missing Basics: What Engineers Don’t Learnand Why They Don’t Learn It

Lacunae in engineering education.
No definition of engineering offered or relation to science discussed.
Math-science death march gives impression that engineering = applied science.
The missing basics versus the basics (math, sci, eng sci):
Question: Socrates 101.
Label: Aristotle 101.
Model conceptually: Hume 101 & Aristotle 102.
Decompose: Descartes 101.
Measure: Bacon-Locke 101.
Visualize/ideate: da Vinci-Monge 101.
Communicate: Newman 101
Volume helpful in clarifying nature of engineering and its relationship to technology and science.

Engineering’s Place in the World
Radder’s intro to Part I: Technology, Engineering & the Sciences (taxonomy of models).
All historical chapters:
Mitcham & Schatzberg, DeﬁningTechnology and the Engineering Sciences (approaches to definition, deep scholarship).
Channel, The Emergence of the Engineering Sciences: An Historical Analysis(sweep, medieval coverage of the mechanical arts).
Buchanan, Thinking about Design: An Historical Perspective.
Mueller, The Notion of a Model: A Historical Overview.
Zwart, Scale Modeling in Engineering: Froude’s Case (personal interest).
Alexander, The Concept of Eﬃciency: An Historical Analysis (one of few contact points with economy and scarce resources).
Mitcham & Briggle, The Interaction of Ethics and Technology in Historical Perspective (easier for engineers to listen to history than rants).
Engineering as social enterprise: Sørensen, The Role of Social Science in Engineering, (easy to omit, key to understanding engineering).
Engineering as systems enterprise: Pitt, Technological Explanation (elaboration of systems argument in Thinking about Technology).
Volume moves inside engineer’s mind.

Part IV: Modeling in Engineering Sciences
Personal tale of woe.
Modeling like an engineer.
Theoretical CS folks objecting to papers: “not a proper model.”
Math-Physics envy has limited diversity and breath of modeling that is engineering.
Antidote to confusion.
Houkes and 4 strategies to epistemic emancipation.

An Economy of Models
Argument from early 90s.
Models live in plane of predictive power (error) and cost (complexity).
Scientists & mathematicians interested in new models.
Engineers & inventors interested in new technology. Marshallian analysis at the margins.
Marginal cost of modeling will tend to be less than or equal to marginal benefit of modeling (to the technology being developed).
ΔB ≥ ΔC

Design Institutional Artifacts that Don’t Exist
Many IT products “institutional” in nature.
Engineers think in material terms.
Design in age of category creators versus category enhancers.
Experiences in startup (www.sharethis.com): Designing to avoid creepy ML.
Part II,Ontology and Epistemology of Artifacts and Part III, Philosophy of Engineering Design.

Summing Up
Scholarly text by leading lights of the field.
Thorough coverage: Broader than title suggests.
Excellent historical treatment throughout.
Enough background material that earnest reflective engineer can read.
Solves personal problem: Want to be more scholarly in my own writing, but needed quick guide to key pieces.
Now I have it.

Certified for Consumption by Engineers
Editor, Associate Editors, and Contributors are to be congratulated on a scholarly, useful contribution to the literature.
I hope that engineering colleagues, academic and real world, read learn from, and use this delightful volume.
DAVID E. GOLDBERG
15127

More Information
Slides: www.slideshare.net/deg511
iFoundry: http://ifoundry.illinois.edu
iFoundryYouTube: http://www.youtube.com/illinoisfoundry
iFoundrySlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/ifoundry
TEE, the book. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470007230.html
Engineering and Technology Studies at Illinois (ETSI) http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/ETSI
Workshop on Philosophy & Engineering (WPE)http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/wpe
© David E. Goldberg 2009