Abstract
Engineers must deal with risks and uncertainties as a part of their professional work and, in particular, uncertainties are inherent to engineering models. Models play a central role in engineering. Models often represent an abstract and idealized version of the mathematical properties of a target. Using models, engineers can investigate and acquire understanding of how an object or phenomenon will perform under specified conditions. This paper defines the different stages of the modeling process in engineering, classifies the various sources of uncertainty that arise in each stage, and discusses the categories into which these uncertainties fall. The paper then considers the way uncertainty and modeling are approached in science and the criteria for evaluating scientific hypotheses, in order to highlight the very different criteria appropriate for the development of models and the treatment of the inherent uncertainties in engineering. Finally, the paper puts forward nine guidelines for the treatment of uncertainty in engineering modeling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Theories of Explanation, ed. Joseph C. Pitt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988): 9–46. Pitt’s collections provide a good survey of major positions on explanation. To give an example of an alternative, Peter Railton rejects the Hempel account, holding that explanations must specify the causal mechanism that brings about an event. What matters in scientific explanation is not prediction, or the ability to state an explanation in terms of argument, but whether we can give a corrected description of the underlying causal mechanism that brings about the event we want to explain. (Pitt: 119–135).
Different kinds of models, such as theoretical, empirical, and phenomenological, differ according to the object they represent. Theoretical models represent a theory. Empirical models represent data. Models of phenomena offer a complex representation of an event or fact in the natural world; an example is a scale model of a bridge or the Bohr model of atom (Frigg and Hartmann 2006).
For the classic statement of technology as knowledge, see Edwin T. Layton, Jr., “Technology as Knowledge,” Technology and Culture 15(1): 31–41.
The distinction we are making is between engineering and science as disciplines and not between engineers and scientists as professional figures. An engineer in fact might be doing activities that are in the realm of engineering, science, and/or management.
The cone penetration test (CPT) is an in situ testing method used in geotechnical engineering to determine the soil properties and stratigraphy.
References
ASCE task committee to achieve the vision for civil engineering in 2025 (2009). Achieve the vision for civil engineering in 2025: A roadmap for the profession. http://content.asce.org/files/pdf/Vision2025RoadmapReport_ASCE_Aug2009.pdf. Accessed 11 Jun 2010.
Baker, A. (2010). Simplicity. stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/. Accessed 11 Jun 2010.
Cranor, C. F. (1990). Some moral issues in risk assessment. Ethics, 101(1), 123–132.
Cranor, C. F. (2007). Toward a non-consequentialist approach to acceptable risks. In T. Lewens (Ed.), Risk: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 36–55). New York: Routledge.
Der Kiureghian, A., & Ditlevsen, O. (2009). Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?”. Structural Safety, 31(2), 105–112.
Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Madden, MA: Blackwell.
Frigg, R., and Hartmann, S. (2006). Models in science. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/#SetStr. Accessed 10 Jun 2010.
Fung, Y. C., & Tong, P. (2001). Classical and computational solid mechanics. Singapore: World Scientific.
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., & Mosalam, K. M. (2002). Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for RC columns based on experimental observations. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(10), 1024–1038.
Gould, D.K. (2003). The scientific model concept and realism. A Master of Arts Thesis. Texas A&M University.
Hacking, I. (1975). The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference. New York: Cambridge University Press, London.
Hacking, I. (1984). Experimentation and scientific realism. In J. Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism (pp. 154–172). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hansson, S. V. (2006). Economic (Ir) rationality in risk analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 22, 231–241.
Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in Cost-Benefit analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23, 163–183.
Harris, C. E., Jr., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2009). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (4th edition ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pretice.
Hesse, M. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Sheed and Ward.
Kaplan, S., & Gerrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11–27.
Macpherson, J. A. E. (2008). Safety, risk acceptability, and morality. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 377–390.
Moller, N., Hansson, S. O., & Peterson, M. (2006). Safety is more than the antonym of risk. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(4), 419–432.
Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, C., & Gardoni, P. (2008). Judging the acceptability and tolerability of societal risks: A capabilities-based approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(1), 77–92.
Murphy, C. and Gardoni, P. (2010). Evaluating the source of the risks associated with natural events. Res Publica, revised and resubmitted.
Parsons, K. (2006). Copernican questions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reid, R. L. (2009). Guiding critical infrastructure. ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, 79(2), 50–55.
Ryle, G. (1949). Concept of mind. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Sunstein, C. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Ethics, 115, 251–285.
van de Poel, I. (2001). Investigating ethical issues in engineering design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 429–446.
van de Poel, I., & Gorp, A. C. (2006). The need for ethical reflection in engineering design: The relevance of type of design and design hierarchy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 333–360.
van Frassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Weinert, F. (1999). Theories, models, and constraints. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30, 303–333.
Wetmore, J. M. (2008). Engineering with uncertainty: Monitoring air bag performance. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 201–218.
Wolff, J. (2006). Risk, fear, blame, shame and the regulation of public safety. Economics and Philosophy, 22, 409–427.
Acknowledgments
A draft of this paper was presented at the conference on ethics and modeling at the Delft University of Technology in Delft, The Netherlands, January 11–12, 2010. The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments they received. This research was partially supported by the Science, Technology, and Society Program of the National Science Foundation Grant (STS 0926025). Opinions and findings presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, C., Gardoni, P. & Harris, C.E. Classification and Moral Evaluation of Uncertainties in Engineering Modeling. Sci Eng Ethics 17, 553–570 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9242-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9242-2