sabato 30 marzo 2019

Gadda, the engineer

The Edinburgh Journal of Gadda Studies

La Madonna dei filosofi





Ouverure

A dialogue between Marco Casamonti and Vittorio Marchis





Design in Motion


Lecture of March 29th





Plato and the Allegory of the Cave

Platone, REPUBBLICA - LIBRO SETTIMO

 «Ora», seguitai, «paragona la nostra natura, per quanto concerne l'educazione e la mancanza di educazione, a un caso di questo genere Pensa a uomini chiusi in una specie di caverna sotterranea, che abbia l'ingresso aperto alla luce per tutta la lunghezza dell'antro; essi vi stanno fin da bambini incatenati alle gambe e al collo, così da restare immobili e guardare solo in avanti, non potendo ruotare il capo per via della catena. Dietro di loro, alta e lontana, brilla la luce di un fuoco, e tra il fuoco e i prigionieri corre una strada in salita, lungo la quale immagina che sia stato costruito un muricciolo, come i paraventi sopra i quali i burattinai, celati al pubblico, mettono in scena i loro spettacoli».
«Li vedo», disse.
«Immagina allora degli uomini che portano lungo questo muricciolo oggetti d'ogni genere sporgenti dal margine, e statue e altre immagini in pietra e in legno delle più diverse fogge; alcuni portatori, com'è naturale, parlano, altri tacciono».
«Che strana visione», esclamò, «e che strani prigionieri!».
«Simili a noi», replicai: «innanzitutto credi che tali uomini abbiano visto di se stessi e dei compagni qualcos'altro che le ombre proiettate dal fuoco sulla parete della caverna di fronte a loro?» «E come potrebbero», rispose, «se sono stati costretti per tutta la vita a tenere il capo immobile?» «E per gli oggetti trasportati non è la stessa cosa?» «Sicuro!».
«Se dunque potessero parlare tra loro, non pensi che prenderebbero per reali le cose che vedono?» «è inevitabile».
«E se nel carcere ci fosse anche un'eco proveniente dalla parete opposta? Ogni volta che uno dei passanti si mettesse a parlare, non credi che essi attribuirebbero quelle parole all'ombra che passa?» «Certo, per Zeus!».
«Allora», aggiunsi, «per questi uomini la verità non può essere altro che le ombre degli oggetti».
«è del tutto inevitabile», disse [...]

The Allegory of the Cave

Il mito della caverna (estratto)

Philosophy of Engineering: Basic Questions






Software Engineering Taxonomy

Software Engineering (SE) Taxonomy 


A difficult taxonomy

In the foreword of the McGraw Hill Engineering Dictionary (2003):

    Fields and Their Scope:
    • building construction—The technology of assembling materials into a structure, especially one designated for occupancy.
    • chemical engineering—A branch of engineering which involves the design and operation of chemical plants.
    • civil engineering—The planning, design, construction, and maintenance of fixed structures and ground facilities for industry, for transportation, for use and control of water, for occupancy, and for harbor facilities.
    • control systems—The study of those systems in which one or more outputs are forced to change in a desired manner as time progresses.
    • design engineering—The branch of engineering concerned with the design of a product or facility according to generally accepted uniform standards and procedures,suchasthespecificationofalineardimension,oramanufacturing practice,suchastheconsistentuseofaparticularsizeofscrewtofastencovers.
    • electricity—Thescienceof physicalphenomenainvolvingelectric chargesand their effects when at rest and when in motion.
    • electronics—The technological area involving the manipulation of voltages and electric currents through the use of various devices for the purpose of performing some useful action with the currents and voltages; this field is generally divided into analog electronics, in which the signals to be manipulated take the form of continuous currents or voltages, and digital electronics, in which signals are represented by a finite set of states.
    • engineering—The science by which the properties of matter and the sources of power in nature are made useful to humans in structures, machines, and products.
    • engineering acoustics—The field of acoustics that deals with the production, detection, and control of sound by electrical devices, including the study, design, and construction of such things as microphones, loudspeakers, sound recorders and reproducers, and public address sytems.
    • industrial engineering—A branch of engineering dealing with the design, development,andimplementationofintegratedsystemsofhumans,machines, and information resources to provide products and services.
    • mechanical engineering—The branch of engineering concerned with energy conversion, mechanics, and mechanisms and devices for diverse applications, ranging from automotive parts through nanomachines.
    • mechanics—The branch of physics which seeks to formulate general rules for predicting the behavior of a physical system under the influence of any type of interaction with its environment.
    • systems engineering—The branch of engineering dealing with the design of acomplexinterconnectionofmanyelements(asystem)tomaximizeanagreedupon measure of system performance.
    • thermodynamics—The branch of physics which seeks to derive, from a few basic postulates, relations between properties of substances, especially those which are affected by changes in temperature, and a description of the conversion of energy from one form to another.
    I collegi dei corsi di studio al Politecnico di Torino.

    I corsi di laurea al Politecnico di MIlano

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Schools

    Ingegnere / Engineer

    Ingeniarius (latino = colui che fa uso di ingenia)

    ingegnere (italiano)
    engigneor (francese antico)
    ingénieur (francese)
    ingeniero (spagnolo)
    engenheiro (portoghese)
    inginer (rumeno)
    engyneour (inglese mediev.)
    engineer (inglese)
    Ingenieur (tedesco)
    ingenieur (dano-norvegese)
    ingenieur (olandese)
    inzenjer (serbo-croato
    inzenyr (ceco)
    inzynier (polacco)
    инженер (russo)
    エンジニア enjinia (giapponese)

    μηχανικός (greco)

    mühendìs (turco)
    mehandess (ebraico)

    工程师 Gōngchéngshī (cinese)

    What is Engineering?



    venerdì 29 marzo 2019

    Choosing a book...

    L'esercitazione di gruppo si svolge in questo modo:
    1. formazione del gruppo
    2. scelta di un testo filosofico/letterario
    3. assegnazione di una categoria
    4. analisi del testo
    5. alla luce della categoria assegnata interpretare il pensiero dell'ingegneria
    6. redazione di una breve relazione (3000-4000 caratteri)
    7. discussione pubblica dei risultati
    A seguito della discussione, agli studenti verrà assegnato un punteggio max di 8/30

    Elenco dei testi a scelta (non vincolante)

    Carlo Emilio Gadda, La meccanica
    Carlo Emilio Gadda, La meditazione milanese
    Paolo Volponi, Memoriale
    Paolo Volponi, Il lanciatore di giavellotto
    Paolo Volponi, Corporale
    Paolo Volponi, Sipario ducale,
    Bruno Arpaia, L'energia del vuoto
    Daniele Del Giudice, Atlante occidentale,
    Daniele Del Giudice, Staccando l'ombra da terra
    Primo Levi, La chiave a stella
    Primo Levi, Il sistema periodico
    Italo Calvino, Marcovaldo
    Italo Calvino Ti con Zero
    Italo Calvino, Lezioni americane
    Italo Calvino, Le città invisibili
    Italo Calvino, Palomar
    Cesare Pavese, Lotte di giovani
    Giuseppe O. Longo. Il cervello nudo
    Giuseppe O. Longo, Il simbionte
    Giuseppe O. Longo, La gerarchia di Ackerman
    William Gibson, Neuromante,
    Thomas Pynchon, L'incanto del lotto 49
    Thomas Pynchon, Un lento apprendistato
    Daniel Pennac, Il paradiso degli orchi
    Daniel Pennac, La fata carabina
    Richard Powers, Galatea 2.0
    Michele Mari, Tutto il ferro della Torre Eiffel
    Ahmet Hamdi Tampinar, L'istituto per la regolazione degli orologi
    Robert M. Pirsig, Lo zen e l'arte della manutenzione della motocicletta
    Robert M. Pirsig, Lila
    Richard P. Feynman, Il senso delle cose


    a cui si possono aggiungere i libri presentati in forma digitale in un post precedente

    Gruppi di lavoro (elenco provvisorio)

    Matr. Gruppo COGNOME NOME
    259422 A ANOBILE DIANA
    262086 A CANNATA GRAZIANA LOIDE
    261617 A DE PASCALIS GIADA
    260235 A DELIA SAVINO ALESSIO
    262143 B BELLA IRENE
    256387 B BONGIOVANNI LUCA
    259252 B FALBO DOMENICO
    257339 B PARELLO ILARIA
    257943 C BERGESIO SIMONE
    257815 C BERTOGLIO JACOPO
    260991 C SANTORO GIULIA
    257407 D BERLOCO ELENA
    260297 D FORMENTO CECILIA
    260486 D GAETA LAVINIA
    260607 E BIANCOLLI LUIGI
    261766 E BONELLI ELEONORA
    259882 E BORSARELLI LUCA
    259694 E ULLIGINI SAMUELE
    256451 F BONAVERI ALESSANDRO
    261525 F MOLINAS ALESSANDRO
    260971 F SALAMA ABDELKHALEK EMADELDIN ABDELAZI
    258880 F SALSO MATTIA
    259603 G BORDA BOSSANA DAVIDE
    259031 G REVEL GARRONE NICCOLO'
    260299 G SARETTO FRANCESCO
    260126 G TARULLI FABIANO
    258632 H CATACCHIO ANDREA
    261290 H ORTU ENRICO
    256484 H PALMISANO ALESSIO
    261058 H PASCARELLA MARCO
    258789 I CINQUE ANDREA
    259471 I FULVI TOMMASO
    262494 I GALANTI LIVIO
    256469 I ROTTI MATTEO
    260653 J CODA ASIA ALEXIA
    260586 J CORSO FEDERICA
    260455 J COSTOLANI SOFIA
    256433 J FIORENTINO MARIO
    259977 K CARRIERO ALESSANDRO
    260554 K CARUSO SAMUELE
    259534 K COMMISSO FEDERICO
    261432 K DELLA NEGRA GIOVANNI
    261292 L DE GIORGIO CRISTIAN
    260393 L TURI FEDERICA
    259644 M FERRERO SARA
    259396 M FIANDESIO GABRIELE
    260374 M OLIVERO ALICE
    256145 M PALA MARCO
    256395 N GALETTA MATTEO
    259468 N MAGLIE LAURA LUCIA
    257133 N MARTONE MATTEO
    259165 N MATACCHIERA SAVERIO PIO
    259545 N SANTOCHIRICO EMANUELE
    256903 O DI FLORIO MATTIA
    262426 O DI VITA LUCA
    259358 O DONATO FRANCESCO
    261667 P DI FRANCO ARIANNA
    258980 P KAUR PRABHDEEP
    260478 P LEO DAVIDE
    257759 P LOMBARDI EMMA
    257656 P LOMBARDO GIULIA
    262081 P PERINETTI GIOVANNI
    258424 Q HADDAD JABEUR
    257904 Q ILACQUA FRANCESCO
    260484 Q MASI FRANCESCO
    258345 Q TCACIUC CLAUDIU CONSTANTIN
    258778 R LEONE GIANLUCA
    261109 R LOREFICE PAOLO
    257650 S LUNGHITANO ALESSANDRA
    261372 S MONTILLA EUGENIO
    260858 S TORINO SIMONE
    261135 T SCOLLO ANDREA
    258372 T SPATARO SARA
    259150 T TABELLARIO FRANCESCA
    256261 T TOMMASI MARCO
    259246 U BAUCHIERO DAVIDE
    256263 U BOSCO GIADA
    258670 U BROGLIA FRATIN CARLOTTA
    246107 U NONIS DAVIDE
    258756 V BORSATO DANIELE
    257157 V CAVELLINI LUCA
    258399 V FAVARETTO MARCO
    259772 V FORNO DIEGO
    260779 W CASTIELLO MARTINA
    257304 W FABIANI VIRGINIA
    257836 W FARINA ASIA
    256375 W NERI SIMONE
    261651 X DE SANTO CLARISSA
    258908 X DELLISANTI CHRISTIAN
    258538 X MANGIANTINI EMMA
    256284 X TRENTACAPILLI VINCENZO
    261270 Y GIROLAMI ELISABETTA
    259313 Y MARINO SAMUELE
    260830 Z GUZA MARINA
    259213 Z SCAGLIONE ENRICO
    258488 Z VACCINA MARTA
    259608 ZA POLITI MARCO
    256248 ZA ROMANO NICOLO'
    257293 ZA RUSSO IRENE
    256860 ZA TESTA AGNESE
    258721 ZB VACCARO FRANCESCA
    261116 ZB VILLANI FABIO
    257450 ZB VITEL ANDREI VLAD
    257187 ZB ZACCARIA VITALBA
    258964 ZC ATTANASIO MARIKA
    261633 ZC BARDOSCIA GLORIA
    260905 ZC DECATALDO FRANCESCA
    259098 ZC GALLO CLARA
    262070 ZE KWEMO YAMDJEU ARMAND RICHIL
    257034 ZE LICCIARDI ALESSANDRO
    259275 ZE LO CURTO MICHELANGELO
    259653 ZF ALONGE GIOVANNI
    260824 ZF CERUTTI NICOLO
    258815 ZF TRUGLIO ARMANDO
    257920 ZG BARBATO LUCA
    257099 ZG CARUSO GIUSEPPE
    261570 ZG LARUCCIA PASQUALE
    256475 ZG PELLEGRINO FRANCESCO
    259442 ZH MALLEO DAMIANO
    223227 Z1 BASSO MATTEO
    225560 Z1 LAFASCIANO ANDREA
    226672 Z1 RICCI ALESSANDRO
    233767 Z1 CERRUTI ALESSANDRO
    233771 Z2 COSENZA DAVID
    234536 Z2 GRATTINI LUCA
    234757 Z2 PINTO MARIANGELA
    235895 Z2 LU LORENZO LI
    238454 Z3 CENA RICCARDO
    238805 Z3 ILLICH MARCO
    245218 Z3 PILLON TOMMASO
    246583 Z3 VERRASCINA MARCO
    247725 Z4 PIZZULLI ALESSANDRO
    248150 Z4 GAGGINO PIETRO
    248445 Z4 ODDO SIMONE
    256267 Z4 SARTORI LINO
    257203 Z5 CIANCI GINEVRA
    257409 Z5 MORABITO ROBERTO
    257553 Z5 ANDORNO PIETRO
    257917 Z5 MORINO GIONA
    258177 Z6 CACCIATORE MARCO FRANCESCO
    258427 Z6 SABATINI SAMUELE
    258470 Z6 GAVATORTA DAVIDE
    258661 Z6 CASCINO MARIAGRAZIA
    258759 Z7 BIANCO PAOLO
    258793 Z7 BEJI MAHDI
    259292 Z7 LANGONE LORENZO
    259439 Z7 REYNOLDS THOMAS
    259487 Z8 ROBALDO MATTEO MARIA
    259700 Z8 MARINO PAOLO
    259720 Z8 LAMBERTI NICOLO'
    259738 Z8 MACELLETTI VERDIANA
    259990 Z9 CAGNETTA FRANCESCO PAOLO
    260171 Z9 BENNARDO WILLIAM
    260175 Z9 FACCIO ANDREA
    260190 Z9 BUFFA PIETRO
    260398 Z10 CARUGO DANIELE
    260500 Z10 PANIZZA MATTEO
    260588 Z10 TRIANNI GABRIELE
    260701 Z10 COSTANZO ANDREA
    260963 Z11 CASTORINA ENRICO
    261783 Z11 BUONFRATE GIOVANNI
    262433 Z11 MARTI ALESSANDRO
    264832 Z11 TOGU SIDNEY
    265919 Z11 HAYAT AHTESHAM

    nota: i gruppi Z1...Z11 sono stati assegnati d'ufficio

    giovedì 28 marzo 2019

    Towards a Philosophy of Engineering

    Philosophy and Engineering: Setting the Stage, by Ibo van de Poel, in Philosophy and Engineering. An Emerging Agenda, Dorddrecht : Springer, 2010..

    [...]

    1.2 Towards a Philosophy of Engineering
      
    Since a philosophy of engineering is still to be developed, there is not a commonly agreed set of problems that define the field. Still, based on the workshop and earlier philosophical reflections on engineering, we can identify a number of topics that belong to the philosophy of engineering. Below, we sketch a number of such topics to give an impression of what a philosophy of engineering might look like, without the aim of being complete or exhaustive.

    1.2.1 What is Engineering?

    A first issue is how to define engineering, an issue that emerges in several contri-butions to this volume. All contributors agree that design is central to engineering (see e.g. the contributions by Davis, Luegenbiehl, Didier, Moses and the recent vol-ume Philosophy and Design edited by Vermaas, Kroes, Light and Moore). Beyond this, disagreement seems to rule. Durbin, for example, looks at engineering as guild, suggesting that engineering is not or at least not necessarily based on science and mathematics, whereas Luegenbiehl defines engineering as “the transformation of the natural world, using scientific principles and mathematics, in order to achieve some desired practical end” (Luegenbiehl, this volume, p. 153). As he notes, this definition “reflects the modern scientific foundation of engineering, rather than the crafts tradition” (Luegenbiehl, this volume, p. 153).

    Li Bo-cong and Didier include other actors than just engineers in the engineering community like managers, other technologists, workers and investors. Davis, who wants to distinguish engineers from other technologists, would probably disagree: engineering is what engineers do in their capacity as engineers.

     In fact, the contributors do not agree on the best approach to defining engineer-ing. Luegenbiehl gives a stipulative definition (see above). Mitcham and Mackey in contrast propose a linguistic philosophical approach to characterising engineering:

    what engineering is might be better determined by how the word “engineering” and its cog-nates and associated terms (such as invention, innovation, design, technology, science, etc.) are used, especially in relation to each other. From a linguistic philosophical perspective, it would be appropriate to begin not so much with our experiences of engineering but with the words we use to talk about such experiences (Mitcham and Mackey, this volume, p. 55).

    Davis in his contribution criticizes both philosophical definitions of engineer-ing and a linguistic approach. With respect to the latter he remarks that “[t]he term ‘engineer’ (or ‘engineering’) is no guarantee that what is in question is an engineer (or engineering)” (Davis, this volume, p. 16). This is so because, for example, loco-motive engineers are not engineers in the sense we are interested in here. Moreover, in some languages, there are no clear distinctions between engineers and technolo-gists. With respect to philosophical definitions of engineering, Davis argues that

    [a]ll attempts at philosophical definition will: a) be circular (that is, use “engineering” or a synonym or equally troublesome term); b) be open to serious counter-examples (whether because they exclude from engineering activities clearly belonging or because they include activities clearly not belonging); c) be too abstract to be informative; or d) suffer a combi-nation of these errors (Davis, this volume, p. 17).

    As an alternative he proposes a historical approach:

    engineering, like other professions, is self-defining (in something other than the classical sense of definition). There is a core, more or less fixed by history at any given time, which determines what is engineering and what is not. This historical core, a set of living practi-tioners who—by discipline, occupation, and profession—undoubtedly are engineers, con-stitutes the profession (Davis, this volume, p. 16).

    In relation to ethical reflection, a major issue is, as noted by Luegenbiel, whether a definition of engineering should “emphasize the requirement of engineering activ-ity to benefit humanity” (Luegenbiehl, this volume, p. 153) or should choose a more value-neutral approach. The first approach is prominent in traditional engineering ethics where engineering is conceived of as a profession (see e.g. Davis 1998) and it also seems at work in the contributions by Gunn and Bowen. Luegenbiehl and Didier in their contributions prefer a more value-neutral approach. Luegenbiehl does so because he is interested in global cross-cultural ethical principles for engi-neering, and a more value-neutral approach to defining engineering “avoids having to deal initially with the questions of culturally based ideas of benefit and harm.” (Luegenbiehl, this volume, p. 153) Nevertheless, he believes that “some value ele-ment is unavoidable, in that I assume that engineering activity should leave the world no less well off and that disbenefits created by engineering not be catastrophic in nature.” (Luegenbiehl, this volume, p. 153)

    According to Didier, engineering has in history had both morally positive and negative (and value-free) connotations. She prefers to conceive of engineering not as a profession that by definition makes a positive contribution to society but rather as an activity that can be ethically evaluated. Didier’s proposal has the advantage


    1   Philosophy and Engineering: Setting the Stage
    5

    of not assuming a culturally-bound notion of profession. (As she argues the Anglo-Saxon notion of profession does not have a clear counterpart in France.) Moreover, her neutral definition opens the ways to ethical reflection on engineering activities like design (see the contribution by Robison and see Van de Poel 2001) and innovation (see the contribution by De Kreuk et al.) that are somewhat neglected in traditional engineering ethics. It might also broaden the discussion about the respon-sibilities of engineers beyond what is stated in codes of ethics for engineering (see e.g. the contributions by Coeckelbergh and by Pols).


    1.2.2 The Relation Between Science, Technology and Engineering

    An issue that is related to the definition of engineering is how to understand and characterize the relation between science, technology and engineering. This issue surfaces in several contributions to his volume. Despite differences, there is at least one point of agreement: engineering is not applied science. Pitt looks at the real-world interaction between science and engineering and suggests that science may depend on engineering rather than the reverse. Moses argues that design differenti-ates engineering from science and mathematics. Broome suggests that engineering employs a different (formal) language game than science and mathematics, one in which there is room to express error and incertitude.

    Li Bo-cong argues for what he calls the trichotomy of science, technology and engineering: science, technology and engineering are three distinct though related activities. According to him, the core activity of science is discovery, of technology invention and of engineering making. Science produces scientific knowledge like theories; technology produces technological knowledge, like patents and blueprints for an invention and engineering produces the actual material products. Two things are worth noting about Bo-cong’s account in relation to other possible accounts of the relation between science, technology and engineering. First, what he calls technology, some others would call engineering science (as distinct from natural science). Aspects of engineering science, and differences with natural science, are discussed in the contributions by De Vries and Pirtle. Second, Bo-cong conceives of technology as an activity, rather than as the product or object of engineering.2 In his book Thinking Through Technology, Mitcham describes two other common con-ceptualisations of technology, in addition to technology as object and technology as activity, i.e. technology as knowledge and as volition (wilful or purposive action). Each of these conceptualisations of technology foregrounds different philosophi-cal questions and each would probably account for a somewhat different relation between technology and engineering and, hence, between the philosophy of tech-nology and the philosophy of engineering.


                                                                                                        
    1.2.3 Other Philosophical Issues in Engineering

    The issues discussed above are largely conceptual: how to best define and under-stand engineering, technology, and science and how to understand their relation? Such conceptual questions may also be asked about specific activities and con-cepts in engineering like design, function, invention, creativity and patents. For example, Vermaas in his contributions sets out the ICE-theory that tries to solve a number of conceptual (and metaphysical) issues with respect to technical functions. In addition to conceptual issues, engineering raises a range of other philosophical questions.

    One additional kind of issue is epistemological: what is the nature of engineering knowledge and the justification of such knowledge? The seminal work here is still

    What engineers know and how they know it by Walter Vincenti – an engineer and historian of technology. Vincenti distinguishes different types of engineering knowl-edge. (For a recent discussion of epistemological issues see Houkes 2006.) The contributions by the philosophers De Vries and Pirtle in this volume also address epistemological issues.

    Another kind of issue is methodological, i.e. questions about the methods employed in engineering and their adequacy and justification. The engineer Billy Koen has argued in his book Discussion of the Method that all methods in engineer-ing are fundamentally heuristic in nature (see also his contribution to this volume). Philosophers have critically examined a number of methods used in engineering like multi-criteria decision-making (Franssen 2005), design methods (Vermaas and Dorst 2006) and quality function deployment (Van de Poel 2007). In this volume, one of the pioneers of systems engineering, Joel Moses, discusses different approaches in systems engineering. The philosopher Ottens provides a critical analysis of methods in systems engineering for the design and management of socio-technical systems. Engineer Abbott discusses a number of issues in software development.

    Engineering also raises metaphysical and ontological issues, for example, about the status of design or functions. It might seem that such issues are less rele-vant to practising engineers than, for example, conceptual, epistemological and methodological issues. Vermaas in his contribution, for example, suggests that the ICE-theory for technological functions that he and Houkes developed needs to be stripped off from its philosophical assumptions to make it relevant to engineer-ing. Despite Vermaas’ scepticism, engineers have engaged in applied ontology as a means for developing (better) design methods, databases of engineering parts and the like (e.g. Kitamura et al. 2006).

    Engineering obviously also raises ethical issues, as is witnessed by the devel-opment of engineering ethics. As argued above, some authors in this volume fur-ther extend the scope of engineering ethics. Again, this is an area to which both philosophers and engineers have made a contribution. Typically, the main textbooks in engineering ethics are written by a combination of philosophers and engineers (Vesilind and Gunn 1998; Martin and Schinzinger 2005; Harris et al. 2008).

    Engineering does not only raise new philosophical problems, it might also some-times shed new light on existing philosophical questions. McCarthy in her contri-bution suggests that an examination of engineering knowledge would create new insights into existing epistemological questions. With respect to ethics, it might be argued that engineers in the design process deal with conflicting values by creatively thinking of new designs and innovations that soften or even solve existing value con-flicts (Van de Poel 2005). This is a way of dealing with value conflicts that has been overlooked in the philosophical literature on value conflict. The later, indeed, sug-gests another important theme for philosophical reflection in engineering: creativity and innovation.





     
    The above list of issues may be a bit biased towards an analytical approach to the philosophy of engineering. As the contributions by Durbin and by Mitcham and Mackay illustrate other approaches are possible as well.


    1.2.4    Interaction and Cooperation Between Philosophers and Engineers

    The above overview shows that both engineers and philosophers have been and are working on conceptual, epistemological, methodological, ontological and ethical issues in engineering. This is not to say that they have always done so in cooper-ation or that they always agree on the quality standards for such work. Above, we have suggested that they do not necessarily do so, and this is in fact underlined by the experiences described by Vermaas in his paper. Still, this volume also shows examples of good cooperation between engineers and philosophers, for example in dealing with ethical issues in innovation (De Kreuk et al.) and in developing teach-ing materials for engineering ethics (Kroesen and van der Zwaag). Typically, the main examples of fruitful cooperation between engineers and philosophers are from ethics.

    One might wonder what would be required for a further fruitful cooperation between philosophers and engineers. As earlier noticed, philosophers and engineers come from different (academic) cultures. Cooperation then seems to require some changes in the mind-set of both disciplines. For philosophers, it requires at least the willingness to pay attention to the reality of engineering practice; the empirical turn in the philosophy suggests that at least some philosophers are now making this move. For engineers, it would require a willingness to reflect on their own practices even if this is not immediately useful or even undermines current practices. (This is not to say that philosophical reflection cannot be useful for engineering eventu-ally, but one should not expect immediate results.) Goldberg in his contribution to this volume suggests that engineering is now increasingly facing a global crisis that spurs, at least temporarily, a turn to philosophy.

    The further cooperation between philosophers and engineers, and more generally the philosophical reflection on engineering, will be facilitated by the continuation of the WPE workshops.