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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
Brooks, F. P, Jr. (1996). The computer scientist as toolsmith II. Communications of the ACM, 39(3), 61–68.
Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 329–347.
Campbell, D. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. I). La Salle: Open Court.
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chakrabarty, M. (2012). Popper’s contribution to the philosophical study of artifacts. In Philosophy of Science Association 23rd Biennial Meeting.
Clausen, J., & Cantwell, J. (2007). Reasoning with safety factor rules. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 11(1), 55–70.
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.
Constant, E. W, I. I. (1999). Reliable knowledge and unreliable stuff. Technology and Culture, 40(2), 324–357.
Cuevas-Badallo, A. (2005). A model-based approach to technological theories. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9, 2.
Davis, M. (1996). Defining “engineer”: How to do it and why it matters. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(2), 97–101.
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.
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.
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.
ECPD. (1947). Canons of ethics for engineers. New York: Engineers’ Council for Professional Development.
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.
Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fetzer, J. H. (1988). Program verification: The very idea. Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1048–1063.
Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.
Gelman, A., & Shalizi, C. R. (2012). Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(1), 8–38.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, D. E. & McCarthy, N. (Eds.). (2008). In Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering (WPE 2008). The Royal Academy of Engineering.
Hoare, C. A. R. (1996). The logic of engineering design. Microprocessing and Microprogramming, 41, 525–539.
Houkes, W. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37(1), 102–113.
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.
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.
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.
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). La Salle: Open Court.
Johnson, A. (2009). Hitting the brakes: Engineering design and the production of knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.
Koen, B. V. (1988). Toward a definition of the engineering method. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 307–315.
Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design studies, 23, 287–302.
Laymon, R. (1989). Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese, 81, 353–371.
Layton, E. (1971). Mirror-image twins: The communities of science and technology in 19th-century America. Technology and Culture, 12(4), 562–580.
Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54(4), 421–431.
MacKenzie, D. (2001). Mechanizing proof: Computing, risk, and trust. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273.
Meijers, A. (Ed.). (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 309–319.
Petrowski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1974). Replies to my critics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. 2). LaSalle: Open Court.
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.
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.
Rapp, F. (1981). Analytical philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsøkonomen, 8, 390–396.
Rogers, G. F. C. (1983). The nature of engineering. London: MacMillan.
Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 65–72.
Rushby, J. (2013). Mechanized support for assurance case argumentation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance. Springer.
Ryle, G. (1945). Knowing how and knowing that. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1–16.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
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.
van de Poel, I., & Goldberg, D. E. (Eds.). (2010). Philosophy of engineering and technology. Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Springer.
Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.
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.
NICTA is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program.
About this article
Cite this article
Staples, M. Critical rationalism and engineering: ontology. Synthese 191, 2255–2279 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0396-3
- Critical rationalism