Abstract
One goal of the philosophy of engineering is to more clearly distinguish engineering from science. This paper advances the suggestion that one distinction between the activities of science and engineering concerns the role of abstract thinking. A scientific theory unifies entities that are conceived of as existent in the world; an engineering design unifies existent entities with ones whose existence depends upon the design. The creation of scientific theory involves a single abstraction of a pattern that can unify existent entities. The creation of engineering design utilizes a double abstraction. An engineer must grasp an idea of purpose abstracted from any of its particular instantiations, and must also grasp the relation between this abstract idea of purpose and the existent entities, typically called components, relevant to the creation of the design. An implication for engineering education is an elevation of the study of components as functional elements in technological system design to be on par with current practice on analysis methods. In addition, engineers need familiarity with multiple paradigmatic examples of design patterns or system function structures so that they have resources for connecting conceptions of world and function.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Heywood, J. (2011). A historical overview of recent developments in the search for a philosophy of engineering education. 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Rapid City, South Dakota, October 12–15. 41
Michfelder, D. P., McCarthy, N., and Goldberg, D. E. (Eds.) (2013). Philosophy and Engineering: On Practice, Principles, and Process. Dordrecht, Springer. 41
Heywood, J., McGrann, R., and Smith, K. A. (2008). Continuing the FIE2007 Conversation on: Can philosophy of engineering education improve the practice of engineering education? 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Saratoga Springs, New York, October 22–25. 41
Heywood, J. (2008). Screening curriculum aims and objectives using the philosophy of education. 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Saratoga Springs, New York, October 22–25. 41
See, e.g., Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.1, or Nicomachean Ethics, 6:1–7. 42
Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering, (2008). Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages, National Academy of Engineering. Washington DC, National Academies Press. 42
Pearson, G. and Young, A. T. (Eds.) (2002). Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology. Washington, DC, National Academies Press. 42
Adams, J. L. and James, L. (1991). Flying Buttresses, Entropy, and O-Rings: The World of an Engineer. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. 42
Billington, D. and Billington, D. Jr. (2006). Power, Speed, and Form: Engineers and the Making of the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 42
See, e.g., Feibleman, J. K., Pure science, applied science, and technology: An attempt at definitions, in Mitcham. C. and Mackey, R. (Eds.), Philosophy and Technology, pages 33–41, New York, The Free Press. 42
Pitt, J. C. (2000). Thinking About Technology, p. 2 ftnt. p. 1, New York, Seven Bridges Press. 42
For example, engineering departments are often called departments of applied science. For further examples of ways that this standard account appears as an assumption in public discourse, see, Goldman, S. (2004). Why we need a philosophy of engineering: A work in progress. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2(2):164–166. 42
Vincenti, W. (1990). What Engineers Know and How They Know It, p. 5, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press. 44, 51
Ibid. pages 7–8. Vincenti draws a distinction between “normal design,” and “radical design.” One of the differences he proposes between them is that what is taken as given is more extensive and in the former than the latter. 44
Einstein, Albert (1916). The foundation of the general theory of relativity. Annalender Physik, 49(7):769–822. 45
Dyson, F. W., Eddington, A. S., and Davidson, C. (1920). A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 220A:291–333. 45
For example in chronicalling the controversy surrounding string theories, physicists Smolin and Woit emphasize the centrality of testable hypotheses and predictions that can be experimentally verified. Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. For example in chronicalling the controversy surrounding string theories, physicists Smolin and Woit emphasize the centrality of testable hypotheses and predictions that can be experimentally verified. Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
See, e.g., Aristotle, Physics 2.2 and Goldman (2004), 166. 47
Loc. cit. Ref. [13], pages 207–222 for a more detailed examination of the types of knowledge of the world required for design. 48
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bassett, G., Krupczak, J. (2022). Abstract Thought in Engineering Science: Theory and Design. In: Philosophy and Engineering Education. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Science, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03761-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03761-0_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-03751-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-03761-0
eBook Packages: Synthesis Collection of Technology (R0)eBColl Synthesis Collection 11