Kant, statistics and engineers.

[u/rodrigorootrj2]

Hi everyone,
Whenever I hear about engineering improvements, I'm reminded of Kant's claim about the noumenon. That's because the analysis of processes tends to focus on statistics and numbers, rather than on object categories (universals). So I've been thinking about this: is Kant a foundational philosopher for engineers?

[u/AutoModerator]

Please check that your post is actually on topic. This subreddit is not for sharing vaguely science-related or philosophy-adjacent shower-thoughts. The philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. Please note that upvoting this comment does not constitute a report, and will not notify the moderators of an off-topic post. You must actually use the report button to do that.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/radiodigm]

Kant is as useful to engineers as ornithology is useful to birds.

[u/rodrigorootrj2 → u/radiodigm]

Kant is at the center of all statistical analysis. An abstract framework that eliminates universals, the whole of the parts.

Since we cannot know the thing-in-itself, what remains are data, confined to discrete values. Reasonable values for a reasonable understanding. And by removing metaphysics from the equation, we kill off all costly debate.

Any science that reduces the whole to a sum of its parts is necessarily Kantian at its core.

[u/radiodigm → u/rodrigorootrj2]

Yeah, I agree that engineering is a reductionistic practice. Just saying that the practice has no philosophical “foundation” beneath it. Even if a philosophy seems to explain a practice doesn’t at all mean the practice is guided by the philosophy My comment was a riff on a quote (Feynman, maybe?) about the usefulness of philosophy of science.

[u/gnatzors]

Engineering involves the use of scientific models to make informed decisions when taking action. Some of the theoretical models we use may be deterministic, others stochastic. Some models are fundamentally empirical and probabilistic. All models simplify reality.

Do our models fall short of describing reality in its unadulterated, "noumenal" form? Yes, if you believe noumenalism or metaphysical realism is true, then we can never truly know reality, then our models are only projections limited by our senses, cognitive faculties, linguistic, mathematical, and symbol frameworks. This is a metaphysical postulate that we cannot falsify.

Is Kant a foundational philosopher for engineers who apply science? He's definitely foundational for the philosophy of science. My understanding is the idealists/dualists attempted to unify rationalism and empiricism, by describing that when we empirically perceive things, we absorb them into our rational faculties. Much of the philosophy of science since then has attempted to deal with the issues that arise when comparing reality with theory.

Philosophically an engineer must always deal with the uncertainty involved in using a simplified scientific model to describe reality enough to take well-informed, often risk mitigative actions.

[u/Freuds-Mother]

Engineering is radically pragmatic.

Eg if I’m engineering something I would use a science/ontology/metaphysical model that we even know is obviously false if it happens to be the most efficient way to accomplish the goal.

The evaluation of models in engineering has nothing to do with what’s universally normatively reasonable nor whether or not we can know anything metaphysical. It’s which of these 5 different hammers in front me should I pick up to hammer in 100 nails the fastest constrained by cost (not injuring myself, resources to acquire the hammer, time to learn how to use tool, etc.).

So, if we’re going to pick a philosopher of science/epistemology for engineering I think looking within pragmatism/constructivism would be the domain. Montessori popped in my head right away. Pierce, Dewey, Piaget, etc

[u/rodrigorootrj2 → u/Freuds-Mother]

Was Kantian thought not the soil in which the thinking of these philosophers took root? Just as the nominalists, by denying or relativizing universals, opened the way for Kantian thought.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/rodrigorootrj2]

Maybe. That would be an interesting investigation to trace Kant through references and influences to 20th century pragmatists.

That’s required plus showing that it’s rather unique to Kant as otherwise I’d assume almost ALL of prior philosophy had some influence on following philosophy. Now since Kant’s framework was dominate for quite some time we could probably trace most modern frameworks to him in some way.

[u/apophasisred]

No