What’s Good for the Engineering Goose is Good for the Philosophical Gander
David E. GoldbergIllinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana, IL 61801 [email protected]
Philosophy & Engineering Interdisciplinary
• Trained as engineer.• Really have enjoyed interdisciplinary interaction.• Been stimulated to think deeply about many things.• Was stimulated by Carl Mitcham’s WPE-2008 paper
entitled “The Philosophical Weakness of Engineering as a Profession.”
• Answered with “Is Engineering Philosophically Weak? A Linguistic & Institutional Analysis,” SPT-2009.
• Found that arguments made to criticize engineering/engineers didn’t hold up very well when turned around on philosophers.
• Wanted to explore this “turnabout-as-fair-play” more fully.
• Importance: (a) much PhilTech critical, (b) promote better collaboration and work.
• Title & gender comment.Carl Mitcham at WPE-
2008
Roadmap
• A lesson from the late Jay Rosenberg.• Method of this paper.• 3 case studies:– Consequential ethical urgings.–M. Davis’s definition of engineering as relative
to to other occupation/professions.– C. Mitcham’s assertion of priority for
humanistic PhilEng v. engin PhilEng.• A silver rule for crossdisciplinary consistency.
An Engineer & Philosophical Method
• Hard to bootstrap into another field.
• Early aid: Jay Rosenberg’s book.• Remember that philosophers like
to “hoist others on their own petard.”
• Not general inquiry (Bartlett, 1988).
• Interested in whether arguments by philosophers re engineers can be turned around.
Method of this Paper
• 4 steps:– Consider an argument made about
engineers, engineering, or technology.– Abstract essential elements about the
argument along a number of key dimensions.
– Apply abstracted argument to philosophers.
– Evaluate whether argument is sensible in new context.
• Not the categorical imperative. • More of a test for cross-disciplinary hypocrisy
or inconsistency. • Will arguments by philosophers that seem
reasonable for “those engineers” look different for “us philosophers?”
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Case 1: Ethical Urgings/Polemics
• Consider prevalence of consequential ethical urgins & polemics in PhilTech.
• Rise of philosophy of technology as organized field in the 70s-80s had critical leanings.
• Engineers taken to task for ill effects of unintended consequences of tech.
• Follows bad engineer schema.
Bad Engineer Schema
• 3 elements:– Engineer X was instrumental to the creation of
artifact Y. – Y had Z damaging unintended uses or consequences.– X should have anticipated Z by modifying or not
inventing or creating Y. • Of course, not advocating that engineers not try to
minimize ill consequences.• Easy to criticize others for their failings of omission.• What about philosophers?
Bad Philosopher Schema
• 3 elements:– Philosopher X was instrumental to the creation of idea Y. – Y was applied and had Z damaging unintended uses or
consequences.– X should have anticipated Z by modifying or not inventing or
creating Y. • Can’t hide by saying intended Y was intended as “mere idea” or
“used by others.” • Ideas often instrumental.• Engineer responsible for unintended uses/consequences of artifacts
aren’t philosophers responsible for unintended uses/consequences of ideas?
Case 2: Defining Engineers Instituionally
• M. Davis, Thinking Like an Engineer, Oxford, 1999.
• Uses institutional definition of engineer.
• Close reading definitions are shifty.
• Depends upon (a) advanced knowledge, (b) professional standing & (c) contrast to other occupations/professionals.
• Insists upon use of term “protoengineer” for those who come before “engineers” in Davis’s sense.
Michael Davis (b. 1943)
Davis’s Method of Defining
• 3 elements:– Rejects going back to origins of technology: “We will
understand the professions better if we start their history with the rise of modern markets…” (Davis, 1999, p.9).
– Compares and contrasts different occupations/professions to elicit significant features: architect v. engineer, scientist v. engineer, lawyer v. engineer.
– Does not study precursors (“protoengineers”) in depth: e.g., Refusal to consider Vitruvius engineering work as engineering.
• How does this work for philosophy/philosophers?
Davis’s Method Applied to Philosophy
• 3 elements:– Division of labor: Must reject study of
philosophy/philosophers until there is clear academic division of labor: Birth of the modern university (University of Bologna, 1088).
– Compare & contrast: Philosophy was a catchall phrase. Probably need to wait for division of labor in 18-19th century.
– Ignore precursors: Cannot study guild-like apprenticeships conferred by Plato in the Academy or Aristotle in Lyceum.
• Conclusion: Socrates, Plato & Aristotle cannot be called philosophers.
• Must call them protophilosophers.
Sorcrates (469 BC – 399 BC)Early Protophilosopher
Case 3: Humanistic PhilTech Priority
• First reading of Mitcham’s Thinking through Technology was puzzled.
• Scholarship lovely.• Didn’t understand underlying
organizing principle.• 3 parts:– Engineering PhilTech.– Humanistic PhilTech.– Claim priority humanistic over
engineering.
Seems like Violation of 20th Century Project
• Needed to come to terms with 20th century project of the humanities.
• Carl’s claim seemed like violation of the rules.• Caricature version:
– Different perspectives helpful (Nietzsche).– No truth with “T” (Rorty)– All claims of privilege are suspect (Lyotard).– Different strokes for different folks (TV).
• Surprised to see “humanistic” perspective privileged over “engineering.”
• 2 possibilies:– Either Carl being judgmental in old-fashioned
19th century sense.– Thought he was making a solid argument.
Carl Mitcham (b. 1941)
2 Δ Claims of Privilege
• Concedes engin PhilTech first in labeled fact: “Engineering philosophy of technology…may well claim primogeniture.” (p. 39).
• 2 ways Humanities PhilTech has priority over engineering– “order of conception” (p. 39)– “primacy” seems to indicate that humanistic
perspective trumps the engineering. (p. 39)
Disposing of Conception Priority
• Uses Bacon, but Bacon explicitly was inspired by the “mechanical arts” as way out of scholastic deadend.
• Argumentation as Engineering argued priority of technology over speech as first externalization of human thought.
• Linguocentrism of philosophy a key bias.
• Language just one kind of technology (IT).
• The whole project of the humanities rests on technology. Oldowan Tools 2.5mya
Primacy Claim
• Humanities view trumps engineering, but why?• Clue: “In some sense, of course, it is unfair to appropriate the
term `humanities’ for non-engineering philosophy of technology.” (p. 63)
• Mitcham’s method:– Choose word “humanities” that is bigger and more all
encompassing to describe non-engineering perspective (all human, not all engineers).
– Choose a narrow term, “engineering,” to describe the other.
– Desired value judgment follows immediately upon labeling.
Try a Different Semantic Lens
• Given – The carrying capacity of the planet prior to
agriculture was ~1M-10M people.– Today’s population is 6,820M.
• Therefore roughly 6,810M people owe their survival to agriculture and post-agricultural technology.
• Let’s make Mitcham’s engineering vs. non-engineering distinction using different terms.
Relabeling: Survival vs. Aesthetic
• Goldberg’s reframing of 2 types of PhilTech:– Survival PhilTech. Given that technology is fundamental
to the survival of 6,810M people, lets call internal philosophical understanding of technology Survival PhilTech.
– Aesthetic PhilTech. Given that the external view is largely about minor qualitative differences in the quality of life for those living, lets call external philosophical understanding of tech Aesthetic PhilTech.
• Survival PhilTech “obviously” has primacy over Aesthetic PhilTech.
Am I Serious in My Conclusions?
• 3 turnabouts:– Philosophers should be held accountable for their
ideas.– Socrates was protophilosopher, not a philosopher.– Engineering (survival) PhilTech privileged over
humanities (aesthetic) PhilTech.• Yes (at least a little bit), no (but don’t call early
engineers, protoengineers), no (but don’t claim unconditional primacy/privilege for humanities (aesthetic) PhilTech.
Loose Reasoning Was Once OK
• This was OK in the good ole days:– Post WW2 days, a strictly disciplinary world.– Bad thinking never challenged.– Preaching to the choir & lotsa head nodding.
• Today’s interdisciplinary world – is more diverse intellectually,–More creative and requires tighter arguments.– Recommends a silver rule of cross-disciplinary
consistency.
Silver Rule of Cross-Disciplinary Consistency• Golden rules positive, aspirational (Do unto others).• Silver rules negative, proscribe things you would not have
done to you.• Silver Rule of Cross-Disciplinary Consistency. Do not criticize
or characterize other disciplines, discipline members, or disciplinary results in ways you would not have done to yours.
• Not speaking out or against criticism.• Criticism can be creative, particularly in dialectic.• But inter- and cross-disciplinary work requires seeing things
through the eyes of others to do better work and move beyond shibboleths of disciplinary thinking.
Bottom Line
• Critical perspective useful, but risks inconsistency or hypocrisy without caution.
• Rise of interdisciplinary study of Philosophy & Engineering, more diverse audience for work.
• May be useful to test results (both ways) for cross-disciplinary consistency.
• Silver rule can help (a) promote increased collaboration and (b) sharpen research results.
© David E. Goldberg 2009
More Information
• Slides: www.slideshare.net/deg511• iFoundry: http://ifoundry.illinois.edu • iFoundry YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/illinoisfoundry• iFoundry SlideShare:
http://www.slideshare.net/ifoundry • TEE, the book.
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470007230.html
