Advertisement

On Testing Engineering Design Methods: Explanation, Reverse Engineering, and Constitutive Relevance

  • Dingmar van EckEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

In this chapter I draw on philosophical literature on (scientific) explanation to assess the goodness of engineering design methods. I focus this analysis on the engineering design practice of reverse engineering and redesign, and elaborate a constraint drawn from the mechanistic explanation literature to assess the goodness of reverse engineering practices and the content of design representations resulting from those practices. This constraint concerns the distinction between causal and constitutive relevance in mechanisms. I spell out two ways in which constitutive relevance assessments give traction to designing: reverse engineering explanation, and design optimization. I end by showing how this analysis fits within and extends recent philosophical work on the interplay between engineering design and explanation, indicating the (broader) relevance and promise of connecting philosophy of explanation and philosophy of design.

Keywords

Mechanistic explanation Constitutive relevance Mutual manipulability Reverse engineering Testing design methods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Pieter Vermaas for useful comments on previous versions of this chapter.

References

  1. Baumgartner, M., & Gebharter. (2016). Constitutive relevance, mutual manipulability, and fat-handedness. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 67(3), 731–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, M., & Casini, L. (2017). An abductive theory of constitution. Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 214–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamson, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993/2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization a strategies in scientific research. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Braillard, P. A. (2015). Prospects and limits of explaining biological systems in engineering terms. In P. A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology (pp. 319–344). Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Calcott, B. (2014). Engineering and evolvability. Biology and Philosophy, 29, 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calcott, B., Levy, A., Siegal, M. L., Soyer, O. S., & Wagner, A. (2015). Engineering and biology: Counsel for a continued relationship. Biological Theory, 10, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J. R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers, 16, 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craver, C. F. (2002). Interlevel experiments and multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science, 69, S83–S97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Couch, M. (2011). Mechanisms and constitutive relevance. Synthese, 183, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Csete, M. E., & Doyle, J. C. (2002). Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science, 295, 1664–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darden, L. (2002). Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science, 69, S354–S365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2002). Strategies in the interfield discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrell, R., & Hooker, C. (2012). The Simon-Kroes model of technical artifacts and the distinction between science and design. Design Studies, 33, 480–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell, R., & Hooker, C. (2015). Designing and sciencing: Response to Galle and Kroes. Design Studies, 37, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galle, P., & Kroes, P. (2014). Science and design: Identical twins? Design Studies, 35, 201–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galle, P., & Kroes, P. (2015). Science and design revisited. Design Studies, 37, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glennan, S. (2005). Modeling mechanisms. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2010). Function and organization: Comparing the mechanisms of protein synthesis and natural selection. In Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (Vol. 41, pp. 279–291).Google Scholar
  22. Illari, P., & Williamson, J. (2012). What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kitano, H. (2004). Biological robustness. Nature, 5, 826–837.Google Scholar
  24. Lakatos, I. (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos, J. Worrall, & G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes (pp. 8–110). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leuridan, B. (2012). Three problems for the mutual manipulability account of constitutive relevance in mechanisms. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(2), 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy, A. (2014). Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Philosopher’s imprint, 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. Machamer, P. K., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 57, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ookubo, M., Koji, Y., Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards interoperability between functional taxonomies using an ontology-based mapping. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 07), August 28–31, 2007, Paris, France. Google Scholar
  29. Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (1998). Product evolution: A reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Research in Engineering Design, 10, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Tomlin, C. J., & Axelrod, J. D. (2005). Understanding biology by reverse engineering the control. PNAS, 102(12), 4219–4220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone, R. B., & Wood, K. L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone R.B., Wood K.L., Crawford, R.H. (1998). A heuristic method to identify modules from a functional description of a product. Proceedings of 1998 ASME design engineering technical conferences, September 13–16, 1998, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  34. Van Eck, D. (2010). On the conversion of functional models: Bridging differences between functional taxonomies in the modeling of user actions. Research in Engineering Design, 21(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Eck, D. (2011). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(11–12), 839–858.Google Scholar
  36. Van Eck, D. (2014). Validating function-based design methods: An explanationist perspective. Philosophy and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-014-0168-5.
  37. Van Eck, D. (2015a). Mechanistic explanation in engineering science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5, 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Eck, D. (2015b). Dissolving the ‘problem of the absent artifact’: Design representations as means for counterfactual understanding and knowledge generalization. Design Studies, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Eck, D. (2015c). Reconciling ontic and epistemic constraints on mechanistic explanation, epistemically. Axiomathes, 25(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-014-9243-x.Google Scholar
  40. Van Eck, D. (2017). Mechanisms and engineering science. In P. Illari & S. Glennan (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Mechanisms (pp. 447–461). New york: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Van Eck, D., & Looren de Jong, H. (2016). Mechanistic explanation, cognitive systems demarcation, and extended cognition. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 59, 11–21.Google Scholar
  42. Vermaas, P. E. (2009). The flexible meaning of function in engineering. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 09):2.113–124.Google Scholar
  43. Vermaas, P. E. (2014). Design theories, models, and their testing: On the scientific status of design research. In A. Chakrabarti & L. T. M. Blessing (Eds.), An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Woodward, J. (2008) Invariance, modularity, and all that: Cartwright on causation. In S. Hartmann, C. Hoefer and L. Bovens (eds.) Nancy Cartwright’s Philosophy of Science (pp. 198–237). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of scienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations