Will Any Old Model Do?

  • Priyan DiasEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)


Thomas Kuhn argued that science progressed from one ‘ruling paradigm’ to another through periods of ‘revolution’; and also that science was concerned not so much with truth, but with theories (agreed upon by scientists) that explained phenomena. While most scientists would be uncomfortable with such a relativist and non-realist view of science, engineers could probably appreciate this perspective. This is because engineers are more interested in dependable models for fabricating safe artefacts than in the truth (i.e. correspondence with reality) or even accuracy of their theories. The fact that many different design paradigms produced safe structures in the history of structural design is also a testimony to this.


Paradigm Revolution History of design Engineering models Accuracy versus dependability Truth versus safety 



Adapted from The Structural Engineer 86(2), 33–38, Paradigms, revolutions and models: some insights from Thomas Kuhn for an engineering outlook by W. P. S. Dias, 2008, published by the Institution of Structural Engineers, London.


  1. W. Addis, Structural Engineering: The Nature of Theory and Design (Ellis Horwood, New York, 1990)Google Scholar
  2. B. Barnes, T.S. Kuhn and Social Science (Columbia University Press, New York, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. B. Barnes, D. Bloor, Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge, in Rationality and Relativism, ed. by M. Hollis, S. Lukes (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982), pp. 21–47Google Scholar
  4. D.I. Blockley, The Nature of Structural Design and Safety (Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1980)Google Scholar
  5. D.I. Blockley, Engineering from reflective practice. Res. Eng. Des. 4, 13–22 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D.I. Blockley, Analysing uncertainties: towards comparing Bayesian and interval probabilities. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 37(1–2), 30–42 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Bobrowski, Concrete Structures M.Sc. Lectures (Imperial College, London, 1982)Google Scholar
  8. W.P.S. Dias, Structural failures and design philosophy. Struct. Eng. 72(2), 25–29 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. W.P.S. Dias, Paradigms, revolutions and models: some insights from Thomas Kuhn for an engineering outlook. Struct. Eng. 86(2), 33–38 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. A. Einstein, Principles of research, Mein Weltbild (Querigo Verlag, Amsterdam, 1934), pp. 224–227Google Scholar
  11. P. Feyerabend, How to defend society against science, in Scientific Revolutions, ed. by I. Hacking (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1981), pp. 156–157Google Scholar
  12. S.L. Goldman, Why we need a philosophy of engineering: a work in progress. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 29(2), 163–176 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Hahn, Anaximander and the Architects (SUNY Press, Albany, 2001)Google Scholar
  14. J. Heyman, The Masonry Arch (Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1982)Google Scholar
  15. P. Hoyningen-Huene, Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993)Google Scholar
  16. T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar
  17. T.S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. T.S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar
  19. C. Kulasuriya, W.P.S. Dias, M.T.P. Hettiarachchi, The aesthetics of proportion in structural form. Struct. Eng. 80(14), 22–27 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. I. Lakatos, History of science and its rational reconstructions, in Scientific Revolutions, ed. by I. Hacking (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1981), pp. 107–127Google Scholar
  21. D.A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Temple Smith, London, 1983)Google Scholar
  22. S. Weinberg, The revolution that didn’t happen. The New York Review, 8 Oct, pp. 48–52 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of MoratuwaMoratuwaSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations