Engineering Science as Theory and Practice
1988; Johns Hopkins University Press; Volume: 29; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/3105229
ISSN1097-3729
Autores Tópico(s)Space Exploration and Technology
ResumoIn his paper Transformations and the Myth of 'Engineering Science,' Michael Fores argues against accepting the concept of engineering science. But the paper itself raises many more questions than it answers. Although there may be some valid reasons to debate the concept of engineering science, Fores's attack is based on some serious misunderstandings of the nature of history, philosophy, and science. The core of Fores's argument seems to be that the idea of a scientific or theoretical approach to technology, or an engineering science, is the fabrication of 20th-century Western professors, particularly Edwin Layton and myself (pp. 63, 81). Here Fores shows his misunderstanding of the history of technology and confuses the role of the philosopher with the role of the historian. Because he thinks, for philosophical reasons, that attempts to make technology appear lawful rob man of his special competence (p. 81), Fores assumes that such attempts could not have been the work of any historical figure, particularly actual engineers, but must be the propaganda of academics. Throughout his paper, Fores confuses statements by Rankine, the historical figure about whom I wrote, with statements made by me as a historian.' At one point he attributes an argument concerning the establishment of engineering science as according to Rankine and Channell (p. 63). I realize that historians come to be identified with their subjects, but if Fores cannot distinguish between my historical interpretations and my quoting of remarks made in the 19th century by Rankine, he will continue to write papers in which he attempts to kill the messenger because he does not like what the historical record has to say. Although Fores may believe that engineering science is some
Referência(s)