Philosophy and Engineering
Friday, June 19, 2009
Philosophy and Engineering
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Philosophy and engineering - we do not generally think about them as
going together. We all took engineering classes as part of our
education, but few of us took philosophy classes. In my case, I have
never taken a single philosophy class in my life, so I do not have any
formal credentials that qualify me to write about philosophy - I am a
professional engineer, but an amateur philosopher. That has not stopped
me before, and here I am at it again!
If you are familiar with my previous columns, you know that I have done
quite a bit of reading in this area on my own over the years and have
found much of it to be fascinating. One of the things that I have
discovered is that philosophy is not so much about finding the answers -
it is really all about asking the questions. For example, what is
philosophy? That is a philosophical question! Of course, the term itself
is derived from two Greek words: philos, meaning love; and sophia,
meaning wisdom. So philosophy is, strictly speaking, the love of wisdom.
Interestingly enough, here is the first definition of philosophy in
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition: "all learning
exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts." From that, it
sounds like philosophy encompasses everything except engineering!
So here is another philosophical question: What is engineering? In this
case, the etymology of the word itself is not as familiar. At first
glance, it appears that engineers would simply be those who operate
engines. This is why, if I tell a young boy (other than my own son) that
I am an engineer, he is probably going to think that this is really cool
and then ask me, "What is it like to drive a train?" However, in other
languages - such as French, German, and Spanish - the word for
"engineer" starts with the letter I, not the letter E. In fact, when we
call ourselves "engineers", what we really mean by that label is that we
are people who exercise ingenuity.
The classic definition of engineering reflects this somewhat. It is
attributed to Thomas Tredgold, and it dates to the 1828 charter of the
Institution of Civil Engineers in England. It says, "Engineering is the
art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and
convenience of man." This certainly sounds important and impressive! The
problem is that it does not really capture what we as engineers do on a
daily basis. How many of us will "direct the great sources of power in
nature" this month?
There is another definition that I have come across, and I have seen it
attributed to various individuals. My guess is that it is so pithy, and
has been repeated so often, that no one really knows who originally
uttered it. Here it is: "Structural engineering is the art of modeling
materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely
analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a
way that the public at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our
ignorance." This strikes me as much closer to the mark!
One of the interesting things about both of these definitions is that,
contrary to popular usage, neither refers to engineering as a science;
instead, they refer to it as an art. What does this mean? If we turn to
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary again, we find that the first
four definitions of art are all potentially relevant: "skill acquired by
experience, study, or observation... a branch of learning... an
occupation requiring knowledge or skill... the conscious use of skill
and creative imagination..." This last one is my personal favorite. Does
it reflect how non-engineers typically perceive what we do for a living?
More importantly, does it reflect how we ourselves typically perceive
what we do for a living?
Skill and creative imagination are necessary to engineering because the
outcomes are rarely black and white, right or wrong. Our clients give us
their problems and expect us to solve them, even though there are no
objective solutions - there are simply too many parameters and too many
criteria. So they depend on us to exercise good judgment, grounded in
our formal education and honed by our subsequent experience. As Steven
Vick said in his book, Degrees of Belief: Subjective Probability and
Engineering Judgment, "The novice begins with data and ends with a
number; the expert begins with knowledge and ends with understanding."
There is a widespread perception that engineers are little more than
number-crunchers. This is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous. Data and
numbers are meaningless - unless and until they are properly interpreted
by someone who knows where they came from and understands what they
mean. This is our role as engineers, our responsibility as engineers,
and our reason for being engineers. Our reason for being - sounds like
something philosophical!
Labels: engineering, philosophy
posted by ronjiedotcom @ 5:18 AM,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment