A Call for a Philosophy of Engineering

A Call for a Philosophy of EngineeringAuthor(s): George SinclairSource: Technology and Culture, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 685-689Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press and the Society for the History of TechnologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3103596 .

Accessed: 08/09/2013 17:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press and Society for the History of Technology are collaborating with JSTORto digitize, preserve and extend access to Technology and Culture.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.97.58.73 on Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:12:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=shot

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3103596?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Communication

A CALL FOR A PHILOSOPHY OF ENGINEERING

To the Editor: A major reason for studying the history of technology is to achieve

the understanding and wisdom needed to solve the problems of the

impact of technology on modern society, but, as pointed out by E. S.

Ferguson,1 the history of technology is not, in its present state of

development, in a position to produce what is expected of it. Fergu- son stated that it is difficult to find in the history of technology a

discipline or framework that guides the work being done in its name, and, furthermore, there is need for a serious inquiry into the nature of technology itself.

It is not only the historian who is having problems with the meaning of technology. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), created in 1972 to provide analytical support in this field for Con-

gress, is currently receiving criticism for its alleged failure to perform to expectations.2 It is my opinion that the troubles of OTA also in- dicate the need for a better understanding of the concept of technol-

ogy. If you consider the events leading to the signing into law in May

1976 of the legislation creating the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the U.S. government, you find another problem with the word "technology." This legislation was the result of a compromise between groups in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.3 The Senate conferees on the bill, partly as a result of pressures from the engineering societies, insisted that the word "engineering" be in- serted in the title of the office, to make it the Office of Science, En- gineering, and Technology Policy. The House conferees objected, claiming that the phrase "Science and Technology" encompasses engineering, as well as other technical subgroups such as medical and agricultural scientists. When there is so much confusion as to the

'Eugene S. Ferguson, "Toward a Discipline of the History of Technology," Technology and Culture 15 (January 1974): 13-30.

2Philip M. Boffey, "Office of Technology Assessment; Bad Marks on Its First Report Cards," Science 193 (July 1976): 213-15.

3U.S. Congress, House, National Sczence and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. Pub. L. 94-282, 94th Cong., 1976, H.R. 10230.

685



686 George Sinclair

meanings of the fundamental terms "science," "engineering," and "technology," it is little wonder that severe problems are being en- countered in the task of devising effective science policies.

I am of the opinion that the various difficulties mentioned above stem from a lack of appreciation of the relationship of technology to

engineering. There have been many articles written on the subject of the relationship of technology to science but very little on the re-

lationship of technology to engineering or, more generally, to the

practicing professions. Technology, no matter how it is defined, must be intimately related to the practicing professions, so it is unrealistic to discuss science and technology without considering the professions as well.

The historian of technology is having problems beyond those of definitions. I refer to the failure of the historian to give adequate attention to the human involvement in the engineering works which form the main concern of the historian. It is rather surprising that the

historiographers pay considerable attention to the human characteris- tics of individual engineers when they produce their biographies but

neglect this aspect when compiling works of reference. John B. Rae, in his presidential address to the Society for the History of Technol-

ogy, reminded the historians that "Engineers Are People."4 The human participation is not merely peripheral but is crucial to the

understanding of the impact of engineering on society. It seems obvious to me that there will be difficulties when one

attempts to "assess" technology, namely, to assess the professional sciences or the professions. Surely the problems demanding assessment are the human problems, such as the human misuse of the works produced by engineers. A computer sitting in a warehouse, a car in a garage, or a soft-drink container on a supermarket shelf have little impact on society requiring assessment. The real problems arise from the human misuse of these items. A study of the works of en-

gineers is unlikely to yield the understanding and wisdom which the historian is seeking.

Another erroneous concept is the belief that modern industry is science based, an assumption basic to the attempts to develop science

policies. This assumption leads to the belief that industrial innovations have their origins in research and development, and that increased industrial innovation will result if only there is increased

support for research.5 The concept is erroneous, as is evident from the present dearth of industrial innovations in the United States in

4John B. Rae, "Engineers Are People," Technology and Culture 16 (July 1975): 404-18. 5"IEEE Speaks Out on R & D," IEEE Spectrum 12 (1975): 76-79.



A Callfor a Philosophy of Engineering 687

spite of massive funding of research and development, which amounted to about $35 billion in 1975.

My contention is that modern industry is engineering based. It should not be concluded that the scientist makes no contributions to the development of industry, but rather that it is the engineer who makes the direct contribution. Contributions by scientists can be significant, but the role of the scientist in industry is confused in the minds of most people.6

Before the historian can develop a history which will contribute to the understanding of the problems of modern society, it is essential to have some sort of philosophical base from which to operate. As indicated above, Ferguson has noted that the historian of technology does not now have a suitable conceptual framework to guide the work

being done. The missing philosophy, I believe, is the philosophy of engineering or, more generally, the philosophy of the practicing professions.

Since the works of engineering constitute a major concern of the history of technology, would it not be reasonable to expect that the philosophy of technology would be principally concerned with the philosophy of engineering? The fact is that the words "engineer" and "engineering" are conspicuous by their absence in the writings of the philosophers of technology.7 The engineer takes little interest in the philosophy of technology because he does not find in it that which would aid him in determining his true role in society.

The basic philosophical problem cannot be solved simply by sub- stituting the word "engineering" for "technology." The resulting philosophy would still be essentially useless for providing either the engineer or the historiographer with the guidelines they each are seeking. Ellul's claim that technology is autonomous and functions without human intervention makes no sense when applied to engineering, since the engineer is deeply and humanly involved.

As indicated by Mitcham and Mackey, a philosophy of technology should be concerned with second-order questions. I assume that a proper philosophy of engineering would also deal with second-order questions, such as the following: (1) How is engineering science to be defined and what is its relationship to the natural sciences? (2) What should be the field of activity of the engineering professional, taking account of the fact that the majority of engineers today are in the service areas, usually having little contact with the "hardware" of engineering? (3) What should be the involvement of the engineer in the

6Chalmers W. Sherwin and Raymond S. Isenson, "Project Hindsight," Science 156 (1967): 1571-77.

7Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey, Philosophy and Technology (New York, 1972).



688 George Sinclair

areas of science policy, industrial policy, inflation, etc.? (4) What is the extent of the responsibility of the engineer in relation to the social

problems caused by his works? Is he to be held solely responsible for the human misuse of these works? Has the social worker, as the professional in the area of social problems, a responsibility to participate as a member of the engineering team designing a major new en-

gineering project? (5) Why are child prodigies conspicuous by their absence in the practice of engineering, medicine, legal practice, etc., when they are able to make significant contributions to the natural sciences? It should be noted that there have been attempts to provide the engineer with a philosophy. A recent book by Samuel C. Florman8 is mainly concerned with a philosophy for the engineer to relate him- self to his profession. It fails to consider the problem plaguing the

young engineer, namely, how the engineer relates to society. There are some books dealing with the relationship of the engineer

to society, such as Perrucci and Gerstl's book entitled The Engineers and the Social System,9 but it does not live up to its title. It is more a study of the internal aspects of engineering as a profession. Layton's book, Revolt of the Engineers, covers another fact, namely, the roles of the technical and professional engineering societies in guiding the

development of the profession itself.10 The problems are much more complex and extensive than the

areas covered by these authors. Only a coordinated and concerted

approach to the problems of the interaction of the engineer with all

aspects of modern society is capable of producing meaningful results. Individual aspects cannot be treated in isolation.

A final difficulty which the historian will encounter in his efforts to understand modern problems is that the major developments of en-

gineering are of relatively recent origin. A study of engineering his-

tory prior to, say, 1920 is not likely to be of much help. A very large percentage of all the engineers who ever lived are still alive today. A careful study of modern engineering developments will prove to be more fruitful in providing the wisdom and understanding which the historian is trying to achieve.

It will take a multidisciplinary effort by engineers, historians, sociologists, philosophers, etc. to make significant progress. The en-

gineers and the humanists have ignored each other for too long, and

8Samuel C. Florman, The Exisentential Pleasures of Engineering (New York, 1976). 9Robert Perrucci and Joel E. Gerstl, The Engineers and the Social System (New York,

1969). 'lEdwin T. Layton, The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American

Engineering Profession (Cleveland, 1970).



A Call for a Philosophy of Engineering 689

the gap between them will not be closed without a great deal of

cooperative effort. GEORGE SINCLAIR*

*DR. SINCLAIR is head of Sinclair Radio Laboratories (Concord, Ontario) and Laser Fusion Investments (Toronto). Virtually all airborne and space antennae in use today derive from Sinclair's pioneering work in scale-model techniques; he also developed radar reflectivity measurement. More recently he has contributed innovations in

multicoupling, which allows several users of two-way radio telephone systems to operate simultaneously on a common antenna. Sinclair is the recipient of many honors, including the McNaughton Medal, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and an honorary degree from Ohio State University.



Documents

A Call for a Philosophy of Engineering