On Testing Engineering Design Methods: Explanation, Reverse Engineering, and Constitutive Relevance
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.
KeywordsMechanistic explanation Constitutive relevance Mutual manipulability Reverse engineering Testing design methods
I thank Pieter Vermaas for useful comments on previous versions of this chapter.
- Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993/2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization a strategies in scientific research. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Kitano, H. (2004). Biological robustness. Nature, 5, 826–837.Google Scholar
- 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
- Levy, A. (2014). Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Philosopher’s imprint, 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
- 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
- Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Van Eck, D. (2014). Validating function-based design methods: An explanationist perspective. Philosophy and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-014-0168-5.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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