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 USAdeg@illinois.edu

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