Ask most people today what we mean by “science” and the answers will vary, but commonly include that it is: empirical, experimental, authoritative, highly specialized, the result of intensive training, and concerned with discoveries that are precise, accurate, and actionable. One also finds the word frequently paired with “technology”—as well as “engineering” and “mathematics” (STEM).
While we at the Lyceum aim to develop a philosophical study of technology, and have been internally exploring discussions about mathematics, today we seek to question the nature of engineering and to bring greater clarity to its relationship with science. For, despite their ubiquity in our world today, few people, it seems, truly understand either. Allow us, therefore, to give this brief primer for our Happy Hour discussion to be held this Wednesday, 2/21/2024. We are picking up the thread from last week, when we discussed the relationship between expertise and wisdom.
Science: Specialized Knowledge
Most people today view science as a meticulous and empirical pursuit, grounded in observation and experimentation. We esteem “science” for its authoritative and specialized knowledge, and view it as the bedrock of the technological advancements that improve the material conditions of our lives. Central to its approach is the experimental methodology, where controlled experiments play a crucial role in testing hypotheses. (Indeed, many people, when pressed to provide a definition of science, will simply point to this method.)
This pursuit utilizes emphasizes quantitative precision, with a strong emphasis on accurate measurements to validate theories. Underpinning this all is a culture of skepticism, supposedly encouraging continuous questioning and refinement. Thus, modern science appears as a systematic, “evidence-based” endeavor, deeply intertwined with technology and specialized expertise, constantly evolving through rigorous scrutiny and empirical validation. To many, “science” and “knowledge” are synonyms.
Common Conception of Engineering
Engineering can be described as a practical discipline that intersects with the sciences and mathematics. It is commonly held to apply scientific knowledge and mathematical principles for creative problem-solving and innovation. While ostensibly governed by scientific theories and mathematical accuracy, engineering often operates in the realm of approximations and practical intuition, making it distinct from and not necessarily reliant upon the theoretical purity of sciences. It is, moreover, a field where theoretical concepts from science are transformed into tangible, real-world applications, and for this reason is highly-valued outside academia.
Where science conceives problems and explores experiments concerning them, engineering produces the means for their solution. Engineers may not possess the abstract and theoretical knowledge of scientists. But, perhaps more importantly, they abound in pragmatic “know-how”.
Re-Conceiving the Paradigms of Science & Engineering
Despite the common acceptance of these two descriptions, one can perhaps see that something doesn’t quite fit right. Something divides the two fields. And although that divide admits of a bridge, we have to ask: what causes this divide? Why does theoretical conception belong on one side and practical application on another? Why is it the case that engineers often, without insight or oversight from theoretical science, discovers and applies practically intuited solutions? How does the scientific method provide the insight engineers supposedly require? What separates the vision of the two?
Could a fundamentally-short-sighted conception of science be the reason for the divide? Have we been operating under a false notion of what science is all our lives? What are the consequences, if so?
And what, for that matter, do we mean by a “practically intuited solution”? How does engineering arrive at these? What does this “practical intuition” say about engineering’s relation to science?
One thing is certain: the current conceptions of science and engineering do not conduce to a respect for wisdom but rather the development and maintenance of technocracy. Evidence for this truth abounds. Practitioners of science and engineering alike commonly aim at improved control over the material world. But do they know how to ask why?
The Orders of Knowledge and Action
We hope you will join us this Wednesday! Links are below for the mailing list (or to join directly—you need only use a real first name). To help structure our discussion, here are some questions to contemplate:
- Reconceiving Roles: In what ways can the roles of science and engineering be redefined or reimagined to support a society that values wisdom and cenoscopic understanding over technocratic efficiency?
- Infusing Wisdom into the “Scientific World”: Can the principles of cenoscopic science, focused on universal truth and philosophical inquiry, be integrated into the practices of engineering and idioscopic science?
- Practical vs. Theoretical: What do we mean in dividing these two off from one another? How can there be fields of “practical knowledge” or “intuition” in contrast to “theoretical knowledge”?
- Educational Shifts: What changes in education and training for scientists and engineers might instill a broader, more cenoscopic understanding of their work’s impact on culture?
Philosophical Happy Hour
« »
Come join us for drinks (adult or otherwise) and a meaningful conversation. Open to the public! Held every Wednesday from 5:45–7:15pm ET.
