• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Philosophy Of Science

pood said:
Philosophy of engineering. East to find.

In fact, there is quite a bit on the internet about the relationship between philosophy and engineering.
Click to expand...
Probably written by 'philosophers'.

There is quite a bit of information on the net about how god created the Earth.

If you can not define what you mean by philosophy or science the to say philosophy guides science has no meaning, and I wonder where you got the idea.





10 Rules for Engineers

www.kevinwanke.com www.kevinwanke.com

While leading Engineering Teams I have been lucky enough to work with some amazingly talented people. Through their wisdom and mentorship I have collected a set of principles that help to focus both my efforts and the messaging and expectations that I share with my teammates. One of the primary goals of this blog is to not only create personal validation around these principles, but to attempt to explain the depth and logic behind each one and to grow this list as I grow and move forward in my career. Here they are in no particular order:

Rule#1 – Communicate. Over-communicate. Then go back and Communicate some more.

Rule#2 – Trust – but also verify

Rule#3 – Plan for disaster instead of perfection. The best plans cover worst-case scenarios, not best-cast.

Rule#4 – Under promise and over deliver. Or just promise and over deliver. Just don’t over promise. And no matter what, over deliver.

Rule #5 – It may not be our fault, but it is always our responsibility

Rule#6 – Engineers are born optimists. Engineers are also the last ones to know they are in trouble. Be mindful of this so as to not let things get out of control

Rule#7 – Initial planning is the most vital part of a project

Rule#8 – All problems are solvable in time – just make sure to schedule enough time to create the right solution

Rule#9 – Never present a problem without presenting at least one possible solution

Rule#10 – Engineers – we get the job done
Click to expand...

I cod not have said it better. Successful engineers are usually part psychologist and part philosopher. And part politician.


When I was working I was member of the IEEE Institute Of Electrical And Electronic Engineers.


IEEE codes of ethics and behavior. For engineers ethics is not abstract academic c debate. you are fro time to tie faced with eethicall issues.

The IEEE code evolved over many decades. Written by engineers not philosophers.


7.8 IEEE Code of Ethics

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

I. To uphold the highest standards of integrity, responsible behavior, and ethical conduct in professional activities.

1. to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

2. to improve the understanding by individuals and society of the capabilities and societal implications of conventional and emerging technologies, including intelligent systems;

3. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

4. to avoid unlawful conduct in professional activities, and to reject bribery in all its forms;

5. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;

II. To treat all persons fairly and with respect, to not engage in harassment or discrimination, and to avoid injuring others.

7. to treat all persons fairly and with respect, and to not engage in discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;

8. to not engage in harassment of any kind, including sexual harassment or bullying behavior;

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious actions, rumors or any other verbal or physical abuses;

III. To strive to ensure this code is upheld by colleagues and co-workers.

10. to support colleagues and co-workers in following this code of ethics, to strive to ensure the code is upheld, and to not retaliate against individuals reporting a violation.
Click to expand...



An oldie but a goodie. The Unwritten Laws Of Engineering from the 1940s. Used to have a hard copy. Accumulated wisdom of engineers, not philosophers.




TIMELESS ADVICE FOR ENGINEERS


The Unwritten Laws of Engineering by W. J. King was first published in 1944 as three articles in Mechanical Engineering magazine. It has been in print as a book ever since, becoming a classic of engineering literature. Recent editions, including a trade version, The Unwritten Laws of Business, have revisions and additions by James G. Skakoon. Mechanical Engineering magazine is excerpting laws from the book, presented in three articles just

as in 1944, with comments from contemporary authorities.


For the first in the series, we start with “What the Beginner Needs to Learn at Once.” Future installments will be “Relating Chiefly to Engineering Managers” and “Professional and Personal Considerations.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
steve_bank said:
pood said:
Philosophy of engineering. East to find.

In fact, there is quite a bit on the internet about the relationship between philosophy and engineering.
Click to expand...
Probably written by 'philosophers'.

There is quite a bit of information on the net about how god created the Earth.

If you can not define what you mean by philosophy or science the to say philosophy guides science has no meaning, and I wonder where you got the idea.
Click to expand...

Most of life is not engineering, in which things are extremely well defined. Definitions of science and philosophy are slippery — which is why it appears I had to introduce you to the Demarcation Problem.

I have no idea why you started this thread if you have no intention of engaging with its subject matter. I have already given you plenty of stuff to think about, including a link to a very good book on the subject. I suggest you spend some time thinking about these things rather than falling back on bromides like, “Philosophy bakes no bread.”

Engineers must employ logic and critical thinking skills. They must know how to assess a problem using premises and conclusions. They must think about the ethics of what they are doing. All of that is philosophy.
 
steve_bank said:
Philosophy still bakes no bread.

An airplane flies and a computer works regardless of how you philosophize about it. Or believe a god is involved.
Click to expand...
Okay, but do you want to have a life of nothing but bread-making and bread-eating, without so much as an interesting co-worker to converse about the nature of reality with? If there's nothing more to your life than pragmatic survival, it's a dismal excuse for a life compared to what you could be doing. What a waste of a beautifully complex brain! To be sure, from a capitalistic perspective, most of Picasso's output was "useless" and certainly less money than he could have been making churning out period-appropriate ad copy. But what sort of a humanity is that?
 
Politesse said:
do you want to have a life of nothing but bread-making and bread-eating, without so much as an interesting co-worker to converse about the nature of reality with?
Click to expand...
How do bread-making and bread-eating preclude discussion of the nature of reality?
Politesse said:
If there's nothing more to your life than pragmatic survival, it's a dismal excuse for a life
Click to expand...
If you ignore the pragmatic requirements for survival, you won’t have a life to describe as a dismal excuse.
Obviously, focus on pragmatism is required, just not exclusive focus.
But speaking of CWOTs, lamenting the opportunity cost of other people’s choices ranks right up there IMHO.
 
Politesse said:
steve_bank said:
Philosophy still bakes no bread.

An airplane flies and a computer works regardless of how you philosophize about it. Or believe a god is involved.
Click to expand...
Okay, but do you want to have a life of nothing but bread-making and bread-eating, without so much as an interesting co-worker to converse about the nature of reality with? If there's nothing more to your life than pragmatic survival, it's a dismal excuse for a life compared to what you could be doing. What a waste of a beautifully complex brain! To be sure, from a capitalistic perspective, most of Picasso's output was "useless" and certainly less money than he could have been making churning out period-appropriate ad copy. But what sort of a humanity is that?
Click to expand...
While I agree with the substance of your post, Picasso left behind an estate worth $1.3 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. I’m sure he made lots more than he would have had he churned out ad copy. :)
 
  • I Agree
Reactions: WAB
But, speaking of art, we can ask, “Does art bake any bread?”

A good example is Van Gogh. He died penniless, but today his art is worth an inestimable fortune.

Years ago, Sean Hannity, that filth rag on Faux News, had his own radio show, and the subject of Van Gogh somehow came up. He sneered at the artist, saying something to the effect of, “If he wanted to make money, he should have made art that people wanted to buy.”

That right there is the mentality of, “Only stuff that bakes bread is worth anything.”
 
pood said:
Politesse said:
steve_bank said:
Philosophy still bakes no bread.

An airplane flies and a computer works regardless of how you philosophize about it. Or believe a god is involved.
Click to expand...
Okay, but do you want to have a life of nothing but bread-making and bread-eating, without so much as an interesting co-worker to converse about the nature of reality with? If there's nothing more to your life than pragmatic survival, it's a dismal excuse for a life compared to what you could be doing. What a waste of a beautifully complex brain! To be sure, from a capitalistic perspective, most of Picasso's output was "useless" and certainly less money than he could have been making churning out period-appropriate ad copy. But what sort of a humanity is that?
Click to expand...
While I agree with the substance of your post, Picasso left behind an estate worth $1.3 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. I’m sure he made lots more than he would have had he churned out ad copy. :)
Click to expand...
Hence why I said most of his output. The majority of his career was spent churning out art that sold for relatively little, more controversial than lucrative.

Even where his famous pile of dough was concerned, I note that without philosophers and aesthetes, much of that wealth also would not have existed. Most of the value of his estate was in his own paintings, which by then were valued at absurd prices, because people who do enjoy thinking found his work challenging and interesting. Sure, he was king of the table by the time he died, but only because he had managed to attract the love and attention of the idle. Guernica is one of the finest paintings ever produced, but it baked no bread. It was proof against psychological angst about the war, not an effective shield against a falling artillery. It was painted on a wall, yes, but not a particularly strong wall, and the paint adds little to its stability. If you tried to use Guernica as any sort ot practical barrier or platform, you'd be toast.

And what wealth wasn't in painting was leavened mostly with some timely investments in real estate, which kind of goes to show...

EDIT TO CONCEDE: But I agree that Van Gogh would have been a more apt example. Or my favorite sculptor, Camille Claudel. Poor woman. Not even an art collection to her name by the end, she destroyed most of it in a depressive episode.
 
Last edited:
I think Guernica is perhaps THE finest painting ever produced, but it baked no bread in solving engineering problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom