Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 10, pp 2255–2279 | Cite as

Critical rationalism and engineering: ontology

Article

Abstract

Engineering is often said to be ‘scientific’, but the nature of knowledge in engineering is different to science. Engineering has a different ontological basis—its theories address different entities and are judged by different criteria. In this paper I use Popper’s three worlds ontological framework to propose a model of engineering theories, and provide an abstract logical view of engineering theories analogous to the deductive-nomological view of scientific theories. These models frame three key elements from definitions of engineering: requirements, designs of artefacts, and theories for reasoning about how artefacts will meet requirements. In a subsequent paper I use this ontological basis to explore methodological issues in the growth of engineering knowledge from the perspective of critical rationalism.

Keywords

Engineering Ontology Critical rationalism 

References

  1. Bo-cong, L. (2010). The rise of philosophy of engineering in the east and the west. In van de Poel & David E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 31–40). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Boon, M. (2011). In defense of engineering sciences: On the epistemological relations between science and technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 15(1), 49–71.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, F. P, Jr. (1996). The computer scientist as toolsmith II. Communications of the ACM, 39(3), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. I). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakrabarty, M. (2012). Popper’s contribution to the philosophical study of artifacts. In Philosophy of Science Association 23rd Biennial Meeting.Google Scholar
  8. Clausen, J., & Cantwell, J. (2007). Reasoning with safety factor rules. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 11(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
  9. Constant, E. W, I. I. (1984). Communities and hierarchies: Structure in the practice of science and technology. In R. Laudan (Ed.), The nature of technological knowledge (pp. 27–46). Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Constant, E. W, I. I. (1999). Reliable knowledge and unreliable stuff. Technology and Culture, 40(2), 324–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuevas-Badallo, A. (2005). A model-based approach to technological theories. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9, 2.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. (1996). Defining “engineer”: How to do it and why it matters. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(2), 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, M. (2010). Distinguishing architects from engineers: A pilot study in differences between engineers and other technologists. In van de Poel & David E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 15–30). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. de Vries, M. J. (2003). The nature of technological knowledge: Extending empirically informed studies into what engineers know. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 6(3), 1–21.Google Scholar
  15. de Vries, M. J. (2010). Engineering science as a “Discipline of the particular”? Types of generalization in engineering sciences. Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 83–93). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. ECPD. (1947). Canons of ethics for engineers. New York: Engineers’ Council for Professional Development.Google Scholar
  17. Faulkner, W. (1994). Conceptualizing knowledge used in innovation: A second look at the science-technology distinction and industrial innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(4), 425–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fetzer, J. H. (1988). Program verification: The very idea. Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1048–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  21. Gelman, A., & Shalizi, C. R. (2012). Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(1), 8–38.Google Scholar
  22. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Goldberg, D. E. & McCarthy, N. (Eds.). (2008). In Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering (WPE 2008). The Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  24. Hoare, C. A. R. (1996). The logic of engineering design. Microprocessing and Microprogramming, 41, 525–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Houkes, W. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37(1), 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Houkes, W. (2009). The nature of technological knowledge. In A. W. M. Meijers (Ed.), Handbook of philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 309–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houkes, W., Kroes, P., Meijers, A., & Vermaas, P. E. (2011). Dual-nature and collectivist frameworks for technical artefacts: A constructive comparison. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(1), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2009). Produced to use: Combining two key intuitions on the nature of artefacts. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 13(2), 123–136.Google Scholar
  29. Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, A. (2009). Hitting the brakes: Engineering design and the production of knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koen, B. V. (1988). Toward a definition of the engineering method. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design studies, 23, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laymon, R. (1989). Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese, 81, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Layton, E. (1971). Mirror-image twins: The communities of science and technology in 19th-century America. Technology and Culture, 12(4), 562–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54(4), 421–431.Google Scholar
  36. MacKenzie, D. (2001). Mechanizing proof: Computing, risk, and trust. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meijers, A. (Ed.). (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  39. Mitcham, C., & Schatzberg, E. (2009). Defining technology and the engineering sciences. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 27–63). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petrowski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Popper, K. R. (1974). Replies to my critics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. 2). LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  46. Popper, K. R. (1977). The worlds 1, 2 and 3. In K. R. Popper & J. C. Eccles (Eds.), The self and its brain: An argument for interactionism (pp. 36–50). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Popper, K. R. (1978). Three worlds. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Online at http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/p/popper80.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2014.
  48. Rapp, F. (1981). Analytical philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsøkonomen, 8, 390–396.Google Scholar
  50. Rogers, G. F. C. (1983). The nature of engineering. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  51. Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rushby, J. (2013). Mechanized support for assurance case argumentation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance. Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Ryle, G. (1945). Knowing how and knowing that. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1–16.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. van de Poel, I. (2010). Philosophy and engineering: Setting the stage. In van de Poel & David E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering. An emerging agenda (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. van de Poel, I., & Goldberg, D. E. (Eds.). (2010). Philosophy of engineering and technology. Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.Google Scholar
  59. Wulf, W. A. (2004). Keynote address. In Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop (pp. 1–6). The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NICTAKensingtonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations