The structure of science and engineering,
a big mistake, and a book
An effect may have one possible cause, or many. The weight of a stone has a single cause, gravity, but the flight of a stone coming over a wall could have one of many causes: Was it was thrown by Alice, or Bob, or Carol? — Or was it catapulted, or perhaps launched by a rocket?
Scientific inquiry and engineering design see a multiplicity of possible causes in utterly different ways:
Scientific inquiry aims to find the single true cause for an observed effect. The more possible causes for an observed effect, the less scientific knowledge.
Engineering design aims to find a way to cause a desired effect, and a possible cause means a possible implementation. The more possible causes for an intended effect, the more engineering knowledge.
If I know a thousand ways that a stone can be launched over a wall, this builds confidence that the task can be done, but undercuts knowledge of how a task has been done.
Confusing science with engineering is a grave conceptual error. It is also extraordinarily common.
A review of Henry Petroski’s new book, The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems notes that
Petroski argues that we need engineers if we are to find ways to solve such problems as generating renewable electricity, supplying clean water, maintaining reliable communications, and detecting an asteroid before it hits Earth.
In a civilization built on technology, this should not need to be said, much less “argued” as the thesis of a book.
See also:
- The Antiparallel Structures of Science and Engineering
- How to Learn About Everything
- How to Understand Everything (and Why)
- A Map of Science
- Science and Engineering: A Layer-Cake of Inquiry and Design
- A Telescope Aimed at the Future
- Exploratory Engineering:
Applying the predictive power of science
to future technologies
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for such a concise explanation. I cannot tell you how many times I have tried to explain the difference to people myself.
Science is about finding explanations. It pushes the boundary of the known. It cannot solve problems, merely observe and determine cause and effect.
Engineering is the application of science to solve problems using known cause and effect.
Science can exist in the rarefied atmosphere of pure theory and mathematical conjecture, seeking better observations, and determining more precise cases and effects. It can and does occasionally deviate from reality until better data is available. Witness Ptolemy.
Engineering however is constrained to hard and fast reality. It is confined to “What Works” and “What Doesn’t Work”. It is always seeking solutions to problems in the real world, using known principles.
Explaining this to people who try to use the limits of what we can presently engineer as the “Limits to the possible” by claiming “we can’t do it now, so it’s always going to be impossible” is incredibly frustrating, particularly when you are attempting to point this out to a person who is well educated in a narrow specialization who is using their credentials to pass off their opinions as holy writ. Just because we can’t engineer a solution now, it does not make it impossible, it merely delineates the limits of present knowledge.
Isn’t this stating the obvious?
{ 3 trackbacks }