On Writing I

The difference between assessment in Mechanical Engineering (ME) and Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society (PSTS) is the difference between the methods in both disciplines. Within an ME frame the assessment is mostly based on mathematics and the adherence to a certain methodology or process. This of course does not mean that all that engineering is is mathematics. In reality I know that practising engineering is creative and requires participation from multiple actors to make sure it works. My point, however, is that the assessment criterion in ME education does not take into account, for example, social aspects and is often reduced to mathematics and processes. This is in stark contrast with PSTS where the main assessment criterion is coherence and plausibility of an argument using logic and reason. Once again I would like to emphasise that PSTS assessment is more nuanced than I sketch here. However, this is not a distinction I engage with now. Considering my background I did not find it shocking that the way I wrote did not fit the expectations for the new program.    

In both scenarios, however, there is an underlying why question. The interest in why for ME is a situated and retrospective why, as in why are things the way they are? Or formulated in a how question, how did this phenomenon happen? For PSTS, on the other hand, the why is a philosophical why, as in why does this phenomenon make sense? Or the how formulation, how can this phenomenon be understood?  

The distinction between the two was not clear to me. In past assignments I tried to answer philosophical questions using an ME frame. Obviously, I got stuck which eventually led to me failing a course for the first time. Before failing this course, I already knew that a change in writing style had to happen, I was just unsure how I could kickstart this transformation. After meeting with multiple lecturers from different courses something clicked. What I was writing was not necessarily bad, but it all had to do with my notion of how to write an essay.   

The difference between the ME and PSTS frame, for me, can best be explained using an example.  The question I posed for the course Philosophical Anthropology and Technology was the following:

How does LinkedIn, with its promise of connection and visibility, shape what people desire in their professional lives? 

The question above can be answered by  using an ME frame. By looking into the technical setup of LinkedIn and a general philosophical theory (in my case Lacan) I can evaluate how well the technology fits the theory (instead of the other way around, which a PSTS lens would require). In my case, it fitted well, partially because I as an engineer made it fit. I would need to reformulate the question if I want to analyse this question from a critical or philosophical angle. 

Why do young professionals use LinkedIn? 

This time the question can still be answered using an ME or empirical frame by researching this phenomenon. This frame, however, will most likely not yield a definitive causal answer. This unsatisfying element of a given causal relationship is partially where the PSTS frame comes in. By applying philosophical theories (again Lacan) I can critically analyse the phenomenon to discover hidden power structures. I then give arguments and defend my position using a philosophical theory to create a new form of sense making that, hopefully, explains the phenomenon at hand. 

I do realise, however, that the questions formulated above seem confusing. One could argue that the first question is formulated more sharply which could give more philosophical depth. My point is that a how question, for someone with an ME background like me, is a question that almost always is tackled with some sort of empirical research and not philosophically. Even though the why question is really broad and can be answered using different methods, it also gives an engineer the space to think. Of course, during the writing process the question can always be sharpened which would create more depth.  The questions that are posed here are therefore more initial questions rather than definitive ones. In short, what PSTS has taught me this year is how to write better and formulate questions that cannot solely be answered by some appeal to mathematics.