Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical rationalism and engineering: ontology

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Brooks, F. P, Jr. (1996). The computer scientist as toolsmith II. Communications of the ACM, 39(3), 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. I). La Salle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Constant, E. W, I. I. (1999). Reliable knowledge and unreliable stuff. Technology and Culture, 40(2), 324–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuevas-Badallo, A. (2005). A model-based approach to technological theories. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1996). Defining “engineer”: How to do it and why it matters. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(2), 97–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • ECPD. (1947). Canons of ethics for engineers. New York: Engineers’ Council for Professional Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer, J. H. (1988). Program verification: The very idea. Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1048–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, W. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37(1), 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). La Salle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. (2009). Hitting the brakes: Engineering design and the production of knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. (1988). Toward a definition of the engineering method. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design studies, 23, 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laymon, R. (1989). Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese, 81, 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, E. (1971). Mirror-image twins: The communities of science and technology in 19th-century America. Technology and Culture, 12(4), 562–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54(4), 421–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. (2001). Mechanizing proof: Computing, risk, and trust. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrowski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsøkonomen, 8, 390–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, G. F. C. (1983). The nature of engineering. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl, G. (1997). Knowledge types in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

NICTA is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NICTA, Level 4, 223 Anzac Parade, Kensington, NSW,  2052, Australia

    Mark Staples

  2. School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW,  2052, Australia

    Mark Staples

Authors
  1. Mark Staples
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Staples.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0396-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation