ABSTRACT
The history and philosophy of the growth of engineering knowledge is under-developed – the nearest one can get is the progress of science. That history shows the falsity of Carmichael’s assertion that the absence of an agreed set of meanings for systems terms will hold-back the development of Civil Engineering Systems.
The history and philosophy of the growth of engineering knowledge is under-developed – the nearest one can get is the progress of science. That history shows the falsity of Carmichael’s assertion that the absence of an agreed set of meanings for systems terms will hold-back the development of Civil Engineering Systems. Trying to foist agreements without broad based consensus will fail. The evolution of a new ‘take’ on a topic takes time – in the words of Thomas Kuhn we are undergoing a ‘paradigm shift’. The accusation that authors have ‘lazy habits’ that stunt the discipline of Civil Engineering Systems is unjust.
Kuhn’s Citation1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is, according to the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (Bird Citation2018), ‘one of the most cited academic books of all time’. Kuhn argued that the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ phases. The revolutionary phases are not merely periods of accelerated progress, but differ qualitatively from normal science. They are not cumulative but involve a revision to the existing belief and/or practice of normal science.
My view is that systems thinking is a paradigm shift. If that is so, then it is inevitable that it will take time for ideas to ‘bed-down’ and any form of consensus reached. In the meantime, the variety of differing points of view is adding to the richness of the outcomes. Henderson and I have argued (Blockley, Henderson Citation1980) that failures are the very occasions when current practice is effectively ‘falsified’ (i.e. shown to be inadequate) and are therefore central to the growth of engineering knowledge. That is why it is imperative that we learn the lessons and avoid allowing legal processes to get in the way.
In 1950, Max Planck (Plank Citation1950) wrote ‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. … An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents’.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
References
- Bird, Alexander. “Thomas Kuhn”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#DeveScie .
- Blockley G, Henderson JR. 1980. Structural Failures and the Growth of Engineering Knowledge Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part I, 1980, 68, Nov., 719–728.
- Kuhn, T. 1962/1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Planck, Max K. 1950. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. New York: Philosophical library/Open Road. (4 Nov. 2014).