Clark, List: Your points are well-taken. As I observed at the end of the article, modern engineering reasoning relies largely on the relatively stable habits of matter, whereas ethical deliberation involves the much more malleable habits of mind that manifest in human behavior. We can model the former quite successfully with mathematics, but the latter are typically amenable only to less reliably predictive approaches, such as narrative.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:21 PM, CLARK GOBLE <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Part 4, subtitled "Beyond Engineering," is now online at > http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107. It discusses how *anyone *can use > the logic of ingenuity to imagine possibilities, assess alternatives, and > choose one of them to actualize. I have argued for years that just as > science is perceived as an especially systematic way of *knowing*, > likewise engineering could be conceived as an especially systematic way of > *willing*; and if this is really the case, then the distinctive > reasoning process of engineers *should* be paradigmatic for other kinds > of decision-making, including ethical deliberation. > > It seems a fundamental difference is that engineering presupposes stable > knowledge from physics/chemistry. That is engineering in the contemporary > sense (as opposed to practical construction in pre-modern times) requires > knowledge of foundational rules to enable technological production. With > regards to ethics though we simply don’t have anything like that due to the > lack of agreed upon meta-ethics not to mention basic questions of whether > ethics is knowable the way that physics is. (Even in a Peircean model > ethical knowledge seems very unlike scientific knowledge and of course not > everyone agree with Peirce!) > > If ethical deliberation is like anything, it’s like pre-modern engineering > with local norms rather than universal rules. The problem of course with > premodern engineering, as amazing as things like the stone hedge, the > pyramids or the works of Rome are, is that there are so many failures. That > lack of predictability in a technological way where technology proceeds by > accident likely is very much how we reason as a community ethically. That > which is successful is kept as societal norms but the reasons for it and > thus the ability to *extend* from the norms is lacking. > > Now I think Peirce is able to explain both sorts of movements quite well > with his critical common sensism. Yet that essential merging of the > technological with the scientific that was lacking in premodern times lacks > any equivalence with ethics. > > Of course as you point out one can be systematic even when ones knowledge > is more rules of thumb rather than universal laws. Yet the level of > generality really does matter I think. >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
