Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Engineering Science as Theory and Practice

1988; Johns Hopkins University Press; Volume: 29; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/tech.1988.0004

1097-3729

David F. Channell,

Cognitive Science and Education Research

Engineering Science as Theory and Practice DAVID F. CHANNELL In his paper “Transformations and the Myth of ‘Engineering Sci­ ence,’ ” Michael Fores argues against accepting the concept of engi­ neering science. But the paper itself raises many more questions than it answers. Although there may be some valid reasons to de­ bate the concept of engineering science, Fores’s attack is based on some serious misunderstandings of the nature of history, philoso­ phy, and science. The core of Fores’s argument seems to be that the idea of a sci­ entific 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 con­ fuses the role of the philosopher with the role of the historian. Be­ cause 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 con­ fuses statements by Rankine, the historical figure about whom I wrote, with statements made by me as a historian.1 At one point he at­ tributes 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 quot­ ing of remarks made in the 19th century by Rankine, he will con­ tinue 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 Dr. Channell is associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Dallas. 'For example, on p. 63, a statement attributed to Rankine was made by me, and on p. 74 a quote attributed to me was made by Rankine.© 1988 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/88/2901 -0008$01.00 98 Engineering Science as Theory and Practice 99 myth brought about by 20th-century scholars, the historical evi­ dence indicates otherwise. For example, in 1856, in the first issue of The Engineer, the editors wrote: we hope to engage more and more of the practical intellect of the country in the cultivation of the industrial sciences. . . . There is a science of the application of science, and one of no minor importance. . . . Now it is perceived that the arts and man­ ufactures are really “science in earnest,” that every process is but a philosophical experiment repeated for a useful purpose, that every machine is but a combination of certain mathemati­ cal formulae, wrought out with body, bones, and sinews, in con­ formity with other formulae of the strength of its parts and the work it is required to perform.2 In 1870 the Council of the Institution of Civil Engineers issued a re­ port on The Education and Status of Civil Engineers, in the United King­ dom and in Foreign Countries in which they argued that an engineer “should be acquainted with such physical sciences as bear on his pro­ fession, and should be familiar with the rules and operations neces­ sary to apply their principles to practice. The imparting of this knowledge may be termed the theoretical education of the Engineer.”3 In this report, the distinguished engineer John Scott Russell noted that the “same laws which govern the machinery of the heavens, [the engineer] has to apply to the machinery of the earth; and the same exquisite mechanism which the Creator has used in the struc­ ture of his animals, the modern mechanician has to apply in the con­ struction of his microcosms.”4 The report concluded that countries such as France and Prussia had become quite advanced in the theoretical training of engineers and suggested that in Great Britain “no Engineer should take a pupil without adequate scientific training.”5 In another instance, Glasgow University, beginning in 1862, offered a Certificate of Proficiency in Engineering...