Pragmatism and Engineering

  • William M. Bulleit
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 26)


Pragmatism and engineering have some significant similarities, both in the way the world is viewed and the way that beliefs are proven to be true. The two very different fields also consider practice to be more important than theory, and experience is critical in each of their approaches. It is difficult as an engineer to read pragmatist writings and not think of engineering, sometimes because engineers are mentioned directly and sometimes because a piece of writing will sound like engineering. The pragmatic movement is, in many ways, an approach to examining philosophical issues in a practical way. More importantly, pragmatists approach philosophy in a way that sounds like the way engineers approach science and technology.


Engineering design Experience Heuristics Pragmatism 


  1. Allen, B. (2008). Artifice and design: Art and technology in human experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Concrete Institute. (2011). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–11). Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Copernicus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, R. J. (1997). Pragmatism, pluralism, and the healing of wounds. In L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader (pp. 381–401). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The pragmatic turn. Cambridge: The Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bulleit, W. M. (2013). Uncertainty in the design of non-prototypical engineered systems. In D. Michelfelder, N. McCarthy, & D. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Reflections on practice, principles, and process (pp. 317–327). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delatte, N. J., Jr. (2009). Beyond failure: Forensic case studies for civil enigneers. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1981). The need for a recovery of philosophy. In J. J. McDermott (Ed.), The philosophy of John Dewey: Vol. I: The structure of experience, Vol. II: The lived experience (pp. 58–97). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (2008). The quest for certainty. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The Later works, 1925–1953, Vol. 4: 1929. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  10. Emison, G. A. (2004). American pragmatism as a guide for professional ethical conduct for engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferguson, E. S. (1994). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, S. L. (2004). Why we need a philosophy of engineering: A work in progress. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James, W. (1981). In B. Kuklick (Ed.), Pragmatism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kornwachs, K. (2015). Chapter 5: Is technology a science? Recent developments in German philosophy of technology and engineering. In D. Michelfelder, B. Newberry, & Q. Zhu (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Exploring boundaries, expanding connections. Dordrecht: Springer, To be published.Google Scholar
  16. Kuklick, B. (1981). Introduction. In James (Ed.), Pragmatism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Layton, E. (1971). Mirror-image twins: The community of science and technology in 19th-century America. Technology and Culture, 12(4), 562–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Menand, L. (1997). An introduction to pragmatism. In L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader (pp. xi–xxxiv). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  19. Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Petroski, H. (1982). To engineer is human. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  22. Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Petroski, H. (2010). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  24. Rorty, R. M. (2010). Philosophy as science, as metaphor, and as politics. In C. J. Voparil & R. J. Bernstein (Eds.), The Rorty reader. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, J. A. (2013). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9491-y.(5November2013).Google Scholar
  26. Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of engineering education. 1900–1965. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(3), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Suckiel, E. K. (1982). The pragmatic philosophy of William James. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  29. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMichigan TechHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations