Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focussing Philosophy of Engineering: Analyses of Technical Functions and Beyond

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Philosophy and Engineering:

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((POET,volume 2))

Abstract

In this chapter I elaborate on the problematic status of philosophical research on the conceptual, methodological and epistemological questions posed by engineering, and comment on the current efforts to develop this research by means of a philosophy of engineering consisting of collaboration between philosophers and engineers. I describe how recent conceptual analysis of technical functions, leading to the ICE theory of technical functions, has evolved as part of discussions in the philosophy of biology. Attempts to analyse technical functions in collaboration with engineers proved to be difficult by the engineering criteria of effectiveness and efficiency. These criteria provide room for straightforward analyses of technical functions but less so for analyses that contain philosophical detail. The ICE theory, for instance, is of limited use to engineers; a simplification of it, which I present and call the Fiat account of technical functions, is more suited to engineering but is in turn of less interest to philosophy. I conclude that profitable collaboration between philosophers and engineers is difficult and that research on conceptual, methodological and epistemological issues of engineering may better be developed by making it relevant to existing research in philosophy of technology. Philosophy of technology harbours on-going research on, for instance, ethical, social and political questions posed by engineering, and can also harbour on-going research on conceptual, methodological and epistemological questions. The current efforts to establish a philosophy of engineering should in my opinion therefore be aimed at creating an active link to philosophy of technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mitcham (2006, p. 548).

  2. 2.

    Mitcham (2006, p. 549).

  3. 3.

    Kroes and Meijers (2006, p. 2).

  4. 4.

    I return to engineering ontologies in Section 6.4 since despite their “neutral” use for translating different types of functional descriptions, they also contain new definitions of functions that are sometimes put forward as more fundamental. Compare, for instance, Kitamura et al. (2005/2006) with Kitamura et al. (2007): in the first paper the emphasis is on a separate ontological definition of function relative to which existing meanings can be positioned, and in the second the focus is on the conversion of functional descriptions based on different meanings without singling out a privileged one.

  5. 5.

    This strategy worked in part. In a response Preston (2003) argued for giving up the innovation desideratum within her etiological account of functions.

  6. 6.

    The formulations originate from Houkes and Vermaas (2009) and are at points different to the ones in Vermaas and Houkes (2003).

  7. 7.

    The formulation originates from Houkes and Vermaas (2009) and is at points different to the ones given in Houkes and Vermaas (2004) and Vermaas and Houkes (2006).

  8. 8.

    Vermaas (2006); the current formulation originates from Houkes and Vermaas (2009).

  9. 9.

    Examples of functions that are determined by users only, may also be used to argue that the Fiat account does not fully meet the proper-accidental desideratum.

  10. 10.

    See Houkes and Vermaas (2009).

References

  • Bell, J., N. Snooke, and C. Price. 2007. A language for functional representation of model based simulation. Advanced Engineering Informatics 21: 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. 1994. Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, B. and J. R. Josephson. 2000. Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16: 162–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittaro, L. and A. N. Kumar. 1998. Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12: 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. 2008. Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies 29: 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., ed. 1997. Human values and the design of computer technology. New York: CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. 1990. Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4): 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, W. and P. E. Vermaas. 2004. Actions versus functions: A plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. Monist 87: 52–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, W. and P. E. Vermaas. 2009. Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts (Dordrecht: Springer), forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houkes, W., P. E. Vermaas, K. Dorst, and M. J. de Vries. 2002. Design and use as plans: An action-theoretical account. Design Studies 23: 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubka, V. and W. E. Eder. 2001. Functions revisited. In International conference on engineering design, ICED 01-C586/102, Glasgow, Scotland, August 21–23, 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y., Y. Koji, and R. Mizoguchi. 2005/2006. An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology 1: 237–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y., S. Takafuji, and R. Mizoguchi. 2007. Towards a reference ontology for functional knowledge interoperability. In Proceedings of the ASME 2007 IDETC/CIE conference, Las Vegas, September 4–7, DETC2007-35373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. 2003. Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. and A. Meijers. 2000. Introduction: A discipline in search of its identity. In The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology, Vol. 20, Research in philosophy and technology, eds. P. Kroes and A. Meijers, xviii–xxxv. Amsterdam: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. and A. Meijers. 2002. The dual nature of technical artifacts: Presentation of a new research programme. Techne 6(2): 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. and A. Meijers. 2006. The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P., A. Meijers, M. Franssen, W. Houkes and P. Vermaas. 1999. The dual nature of technical artefacts: Description of a Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research programme, Delft University of Technology. http://www.dualnature.tudelft.nl. Accessed 25 May 2008.

  • Millikan, R. G. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. 1989. In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science 56: 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. G. 1993. White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. 2006. Philosophy of technology. In Encyclopedia of philosophy, second edition, Vol. 7, ed. D. M. Borchert, 543–551. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modarres, M. and S. W. Cheon. 1999. Function-centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree–success tree technique and functional primitives. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 64: 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neander, K. 1991a. Function as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neander, K. 1991b. The teleological notion of “function”. Australian Journal of Philosophy 69: 454–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. 1998. Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 95: 215–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. 2003. Of marigold beer: a reply to Vermaas and Houkes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 601–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New Haven: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. B. and K. L. Wood. 2000. Development of a Functional Basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122: 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umeda, Y. and T. Tomiyama. 1997. Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Intelligent Systems 12(2): 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Poel, I. 2001. Investigating ethical issues in engineering design. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Renssen, A., P. E. Vermaas, and S. D. Zwart. 2007. A taxonomy of functions in Gellish English. In 16th International conference on engineering design, design for society: Knowledge, innovation and sustainability, 28–30 August, 2007, Paris, France. Abstract: 549–550, full paper on accompanying CD-ROM. Paris: Ecole Centrale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermaas, P. E. 2006. The physical connection: Engineering function ascriptions to technical artefacts and their components. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermaas, P. E. and W. Houkes. 2003. Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: a challenge to etiological accounts of functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermaas, P. E. and W. Houkes. 2006. Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti, W. G. 1990. What engineers know and how they know it: analytic studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109: 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L. 1973. Functions. Philosophical Review 82: 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure thanking Wybo Houkes for comments. Research for this contribution is supported by the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, Delft, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

Authors
  1. Pieter E. Vermaas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pieter E. Vermaas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. PO Box 5015, Delft, 2600 GA, Netherlands

    Ibo Poel

  2. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, S. Mathews Avenue 104, Urbana, 61801, U.S.A.

    David Goldberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vermaas, P.E. (2009). Focussing Philosophy of Engineering: Analyses of Technical Functions and Beyond. In: Poel, I., Goldberg, D. (eds) Philosophy and Engineering:. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2804-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation