UNIT-III

Epistemology of Engineering

Science, Engineering, and Technology are often confused with each other. All three are
closely related but mean different things. In this post, we have tried to bring out the differences
between science, engineering, and technology. Let’s start with a quote that brings out the
difference between Science & Engineering:

“Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that has never been.” —Theodore
von Kármán

As per the quote, we can observe that science is a study of the natural world
while Engineering is creating new things based on that study. However, an appropriate
modification to the quote to bring out a comparison between science, engineering and technology:

“Science is the study of the natural world as it is; engineering is creating new tools, devices, and
processes based on scientific knowledge; technology is the sum total of all the engineered tools,
devices and processes available.”

In the above quote, we can clearly see the difference as well as the interconnection between
science, engineering, and technology. This can be explained using the image that follows:
 Now that we know the basic definitions and the overall comparison between the three, let’s
move to a set of alternate differences between them. The differences below may seem redundant,
and that’s because they are. They are all different ways of saying the same thing. Choose whichever
appeals you the most:

1. Science is knowledge of the natural world put together, Engineering is creation based on the
scientific knowledge put together, and Technology is the set of engineered creations put together.

2. Science comes from observation of the world, Engineering comes from acquiring and applying
knowledge, and Technology comes from repeated application and approval of the engineered
tools.

3. Science is about creating meaning of natural phenomenon, Engineering is about creating new
devices, tools and processes, and Technology is about creating a collection of engineered and
tested tools for the mankind.

Four Dimensions of Engineering:

Figure 1: Four Dimensions of Engineering

Basic Sciences
The first part, related to the basic sciences, sees engineering as applying natural and exact
sciences like physics and chemistry. This aspect focuses on using logic and careful methods to
create knowledge through analysis and experiments. Here, research is key, and discovering
fundamental principles is seen as a way to gain greater respect in the field.

Social Sciences
The second part, the social dimension, views engineers not just as tech experts but also as
people who understand social issues. Engineers must recognize the social context in which they
work and the complexities of the teams they are part of. In this dimension, creating social and
economic value and ensuring user satisfaction are very important.

Design
The design dimension treats engineering as an art form. It values a big-picture approach
(systems thinking) more than just breaking things down into parts (analytical thinking). This means
engineers look for different options and are willing to compromise. Decisions in this area often
rely on intuition and personal experiences rather than just scientific facts.

Practical Accomplishment
Finally, the fourth dimension focuses on the practical side of engineering—getting things
done. This aspect values the ability to make changes in the world and tackle challenges with
flexibility and determination. It embodies the spirit of the "homo faber," or "the maker,"
emphasizing hands-on work. The successful completion of projects in this dimension brings
recognition and respect to engineers. This version breaks down the concepts into simpler terms,
making it more accessible for undergraduate students.

RIASEC Model:

In the 1950s, psychologist John Holland developed a theory that connects personality types
with career satisfaction. He proposed that both personality and work environments can be
measured and that a good match between the two is essential for finding a fulfilling career. Holland
identified six basic personality types, which are collectively known as RIASEC: Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional.

Figure 2: RIASEC Model

The RIASEC Personality Types

Realistic (Doers)

People with a realistic personality type enjoy working with their hands and being outdoors.
They like to fix things, work with tools, and solve problems in a practical way. They prefer to work
with physical objects and enjoy activities that require strength and manual skills. They are often
independent, practical, and enjoy working alone.

Investigative (Thinkers)

Individuals with an investigative personality type are curious and love to learn. They enjoy
collecting and analyzing data, and are often creative and original in their thinking. They prefer to
work independently and are motivated by solving complex problems. They are often reserved,
analytical, and enjoy thinking through problems rather than acting on impulse.

Artistic (Creators)

Artistic individuals are creative and enjoy expressing themselves through various forms of
art, music, writing, and even technology. They are imaginative and enjoy experimenting with new
ideas. They prefer to work independently and are often uncomfortable with strict rules and
structures. They are intuitive, expressive, and enjoy exploring new possibilities.

Social (Helpers)

People with a social personality type are concerned with helping others and enjoy working
with people. They are good communicators and enjoy counseling, teaching, or training others.
They value cooperation and consensus, and are often empathetic and understanding. They are
flexible and enjoy solving problems in a collaborative way.

Enterprising (Persuaders)

Enterprising individuals are confident and enjoy working with people to achieve a goal.
They are natural leaders and enjoy taking charge of projects and delegating tasks. They are
energetic and results-driven, and often enjoy working in business or management settings. They
are persuasive, outgoing, and enjoy taking risks.

Conventional (Organizers)

Conventional individuals are detail-oriented and enjoy working with data and numbers.
They are responsible, efficient, and prefer to follow rules and procedures. They enjoy solving
problems in a systematic way and are often concerned with accuracy and precision. They are
organized, practical, and enjoy working in structured environments.

Holland Code

Each person typically has one dominant personality type, but they can also exhibit traits
from other types. An individual's top three types, ranked in order of preference, form their "Holland
Code." For example, a code of RIA indicates a person primarily identified as Realistic, followed
by Investigative and Artistic traits.

Matching Personality with Career

The main goal of Holland's theory is to help individuals find careers that align with their
personality types. By matching a person's Holland Code with compatible work environments, it is
believed that individuals are more likely to experience job satisfaction and success. This approach
encourages people to consider their interests and strengths when exploring career options, leading
to more fulfilling professional lives.

Epistemology of Engineering Design

Understanding Design: Different Perspectives

Design as Activity
First, design as an activity refers to the early stages of creating something new, where ideas
are formed before any actual production begins. This aspect of design often contrasts “art versus
technique” or “form versus function.” Examples of design as an activity include fine art, industrial
design (which applies artistic principles), architecture, and engineering.

Design as Planning
Next, design as planning involves the organized mental processes that occur before taking
action. This includes planning, decision-making, and organizing ideas. While design as an activity
is more closely related to creative fields like art and engineering, design as planning is relevant to
a broader range of areas, including business, military operations, healthcare, and education.

Design as Epistemology
Finally, design as epistemology focuses on the ways we understand and evaluate the
appropriateness of changes we want to make. This approach uses synthetic methods, which are
different from analytical methods that are typically used in scientific research. Understanding
design from this perspective helps us grasp how we conceptualize and implement new ideas
effectively.

Analyzing the Epistemology of Engineering

Building on the four-dimensional model and the brief discussion of design epistemology
from the previous section, the following analysis explores the epistemology of engineering through
the lens of four fundamental questions in the philosophy of knowledge: ontological,
epistemological, methodological, and axiological questions.
For engineering, the ontological question asks what aspects of reality can be understood
through engineering. The epistemological question investigates what constitutes engineering
knowledge. The methodological question focuses on how engineering knowledge is developed,
while the axiological question (which includes ethical considerations) examines the value and
significance of engineering knowledge.
This discussion will address these questions within the framework of the proposed model.
Additionally, the analysis highlights the unique characteristics of engineering knowledge,
particularly the strong influence of the design dimension. This includes an emphasis on abductive
reasoning and the willingness to embrace unexpected information, unconventional ideas, and
creative insights that may challenge traditional scientific methods.
To illustrate this point, we will reference Karl Popper’s concept of "critical discussion,"
which demonstrates how the epistemology of engineering can achieve rigorous and verifiable
outcomes, even when the process involves seemingly random, imprecise, or unsystematic steps.
Rigour, Creativity and Change in Engineering

The pursuit of innovation among engineers can be greatly hindered by the financial
constraints imposed by the "bottom line." Acquiring components for experimentation in a timely
manner often requires considerable ingenuity, as the existing procurement systems are typically
designed primarily for production and "just-in-time" delivery. One potential workaround is to
obtain "samples," but these parts can sometimes be unreliable; a single failure may lead
management to quickly abandon a project. While strict design guidelines—such as parts derating,
various design reviews (including Preliminary Design Reviews, Critical Design Reviews, and
Final Design Reviews), and numerous "ilities"—are essential, the pressure of tight schedules and
budgets often leaves little room for experimentation.

Design Suggestions

When working on a design project, consider the following tips:

▪ Make a list of solutions early in the design process. This should include the solution you
propose, as well as variations that could be more or less innovative, and might save costs.
▪ Most design efforts involve teamwork and compromise. Be prepared to work with others
and find a middle ground. Sometimes, sharing your ideas and letting others build on them
can be an effective way to get your point across.
▪ Keep your design as simple as possible. This will make it easier to implement and less
prone to errors.
▪ Think about how your design will look when it's released to production. Will it stand the
test of time with minimal changes and compromises? Will it meet future upgrade
requirements with minimal interface changes? Can it be improved or replaced with
something better in the future?
▪ Discuss your ideas with people from other disciplines, such as project management, quality
assurance, reliability, and manufacturing. They may have valuable insights that can help
improve your design.
▪ When meeting with customers, make a good impression by showing them your ideas and
even creating mock-ups of your design. Make sure you understand their needs and
requirements. Sometimes, there's a big difference between what they write down and what
they really want. Get any changes in writing to avoid misunderstandings.
▪ Be practical about where you source your parts. Make sure they are reliable and not
counterfeit.

Final Reminders

Remember that not all projects will be overwhelmingly successful. Some may have flaws
or be underfunded. However, that doesn't mean you can't learn from them. Stay focused and keep
coming up with new ideas. Don't let distractions interfere with your next good idea.