Advertisement

Philosophy of Engineering and the Quest for a Novel Notion of Experimentation

  • Viola Schiaffonati
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 31)

Abstract

Epistemological issues in engineering knowledge have traditionally played a central role in the debate over the assessment of the philosophy of engineering as a disciplinary field. However, only few works have explicitly focused on experimental methodology and attempted to systematically compare the traditional experimental method of the natural sciences to the kind of experimentation carried out in engineering research. In this paper, by investigating some areas of computer engineering, and in particular autonomous robotics, I claim that traditional experimentation cannot be always applied as such to computer engineering and that the notion of explorative experiment is a good candidate to be considered. Explorative experiments are a form of investigation of novel ideas or techniques without the typical constraints of rigorous experimental methodologies. They are driven by the desire of investigating the realm of possibilities pertaining to the functioning of a technical artefact and its interaction with the environment in the absence of a proper theory or theoretical background.

Keywords

Experimental method Experimental computer science and engineering Technoscience Explorative experiment Autonomous robotics 

References

  1. Amigoni, F., Schiaffonati, V., & Verdicchio, M. (2014). Good experimental methodologies for autonomous robotics: From theory to practice. In F. Amigoni & V. Schiaffonati (Eds.), Methods and experimental techniques in computer engineering, Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology (pp. 37–53). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell, C. (2012). What is a “democratic experiment”? Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barni, M., Perez-Gonzalez, F., Comesana, P., & Bartoli, G. (2007). Putting reproducible signal processing into practice: A case study in watermarking. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on acoustics speech and signal processing.Google Scholar
  4. Bensaude-Vincent, B., Loeve, S., Nordmann, A., & Schwarz, A. (2011). Matters of interest. The object of research in science and technoscience. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 43, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonsignorio, F., & del Pobil, A. (2015). Special issue on replicable and measurable robotics research. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 22(3), 32–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonsignorio, F., Hallam, J., & del Pobil, A. (2015). Special interest group on good experimental methodologies. http://www.heronrobots.com/EuronGEMSig/gem-sig-events. Accessed Sept 2016.
  7. Boon, M. (2012). Scientific concepts in the engineering sciences: Epistemic tools for creating and intervening with phenomena. In U. Feest & F. Steinle (Eds.), Scientific concepts and investigative practice (pp. 219–243). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Burian, R. M. (1997). Exploratory experimentation and the role of histochemical techniques in the work of Jean Brachet, 1938–1952. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 19, 27–45.Google Scholar
  9. Burian, R. M. (2007). On MicroRNA and the need for exploratory experimentation in post-genomic molecular biology. History and Philosophy of Life Sciences, 29(3), 285–311.Google Scholar
  10. Chu, V., McMahon, I., Riano, L., McDonald, C., He, Q., Martinez Perez-Tejada, J., Arrigo, M., Fitter, N., Nappo, J., Darrell, T., & Kuchenbecker, U. (2013). Using robotic exploratory procedures to learn the meaning of haptic adjectives. Proceedings of ICRA, 3048–3055.Google Scholar
  11. Daniel, C., Neumann, G., & Peters, J. (2012). Learning concurrent motor skills in versatile solution spaces. Proceedings of IROS, 3591–3597.Google Scholar
  12. Deisenroth, M., Englert, P., Peters, J., & Fox, D. (2014). Multi-task policy search for robotics. Proceedings of ICRA, 3876–3881.Google Scholar
  13. Denning, P. J. (1980). What is experimental computer science. Communications of the ACM, 23(10), 543–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denning, P. J. (2005). Is computer science science? Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denning, P. J., & Freeman, P. (2009). Computing’s paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fasola, J., & Mataric, M. (2013). Using semantic fields to model dynamic spatial relations in a robot architecture for natural language instruction of service robots. Proceedings of IROS, 143–150.Google Scholar
  17. Feitelson, D. G. (2006). Experimental computer science: The need for a cultural change. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~feit/papers/exp05.pdf. Accessed Oct 2016.
  18. Feldman, J. A., & Sutherland, W. R. (1979). Rejuvenating experimental computer science. Communications of the ACM, 22(9), 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin, L. R. (2005). Exploratory experiments. Philosophy of Science, 72, 888–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franssen, M., Vermaas, P. E., Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. W. M. (2016). Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman, P. (2008). Back to experimentation. Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gemici, M., & Saxena, A. (2014). Learning haptic representation for manipulating deformable food objects. Proceedings of IROS, 638–645.Google Scholar
  23. Grollman, D., & Billard, A. (2011). Donut as I do: Learning from failed demonstrations. Proceedings of ICRA, 3804–3809.Google Scholar
  24. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson, S. O. (2016). Experiments: Why and how? Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Juristo, N., & Gomez, O. (2012). Replication of software engineering experiments. In B. Mayer & M. Nordio (Eds.), Empirical software engineering and verication (pp. 60–88). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M. (2011). Basics of software engineering experimentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Kit, E. (1999). Software testing in the real world. Harlow: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Kroes, P. (2016). Experiments on socio-technical systems: The problem of control. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 633–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCracken, D. D., Denning, P. J., & Brandin, D. H. (1979). An ACM executive committee position on the crisis in experimental computer science. Communications of the ACM, 22(9), 503–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michelfelder, D. P., McCarthy, N., & Goldberg, D. E. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy and engineering. Reflections on practice, principles, and process. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Morrison, C. T., & Snodgrass, R. T. (2011). Computer science can use more science. Communications of the ACM, 54(6), 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nordmann, A. (2010). Science in the context of technology. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Science in the context of application. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 467–482). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Nordmann, A. (2016). Changing perspectives: The technological turn in the philosophies of science and technology. In M. Frassen, P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, & A. W. Meijers (Eds.), Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn (pp. 107–125). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Radder, H. (2009). The philosophy of scientific experimentation: A review. Automated Experimentation, 1(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1759-4499-1-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schiaffonati, V. (2016). Stretching the traditional notion of experiment in computing: Explorative experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwabe, G., & Krcmar, H. (2000). Piloting socio-technical innovation. In Proceedings of the European conference on information systems, Paper 27.Google Scholar
  39. Small, A. W. (1921). The future of sociology. Publications of the American Sociological Society, 15, 174–193.Google Scholar
  40. Snir, M. (2011). Computer and information science and engineering: One discipline, many specialties. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Staples, M. (2014). Critical rationalism and engineering: Ontology. Synthese, 191(10), 2255–2279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Staples, M. (2015). Critical rationalism and engineering: Methodology. Synthese, 192(1), 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steinle, F. (1997). Entering new fields: Exploratory uses of experimentation. Philosophy of Science, 64, S65–S67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tedre, M. (2011). Computing as a science: A survey of computing viewpoints. Minds and Machines, 21, 361–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tedre, M. (2015). The science of computing. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  46. Thobbi, A., Gu, Y., & Sheng, W. (2011). Using human motion estimation for human-robot cooperative manipulation. Proceedings of IROS, 2873–2878.Google Scholar
  47. Tichy, W. F. (1998). Should computer scientists experiment more? Computer, 31(5), 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van de Poel, I. (2010). Philosophy and engineering: Setting the stage. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van de Poel, I. (forthcoming). Society as a laboratory to experiment with new technologies. In E. Stokes, D. Bowman, & A. Rip (Eds.), Embedding and governing new technologies. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. van de Poel, I., & Goldberg, D. E. (Eds.). (2010). Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Vermaas, P., Kroes, P., van de Poel, I., Franssen, M., & Houkes, W. (2011). A philosophy of technology. From technical artefacts to sociotechnical systems. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  52. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Waters, C. K. (2007). The nature and context of exploratory experimentation. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 19, 275–284.Google Scholar
  54. Zelkowitz, M. V., & Wallace, D. R. (1997). Experimental validation in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 39(11), 735–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zelkowitz, M. V., & Wallace, D. R. (1998). Experimental models for validating technology. Computer, 31(5), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zwart, S. D., & de Vries, M. J. (2016). Methodological classification of innovative engineering projects. In M. Franssen, P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.), Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn (pp. 219–248). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e BioingegneriaPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations