Sjoerd D. Zwart

The notion of template has recently been discussed in relation to cross-disciplinary transfer of modeling efforts and in relation to the representational content of models. We further develop and disambiguate the notion of template and find that, suitably developed, it is useful in distinguishing and analyzing different types of transfer, none of which supports a non-representationalist view of models. We illustrate our main findings with the modeling of technology substitution with Lotka-Volterra Competition equations.

In the 1980s, philosophical, historical and social studies of science underwent a change which later evolved into a turn to practice. Analysts of science were asked to pay attention to scientific practices in meticulous detail and along multiple dimensions, including the material, social and psychological. Following this turn, the interest in scientific practices continued to increase and had an indelible influence in the various fields of science studies. No doubt, the practice turn changed our conceptions and approaches of science, but what did it really teach us? What does it mean to study scientific practices? What are the general lessons, implications, and new challenges? This volume explores questions about the practice turn using both case studies and theoretical analysis. The case studies examine empirical and mathematical sciences, including the engineering sciences. The volume promotes interactions between acknowledged experts from different, often thought of as conflicting, orientations. It presents contributions in conjunction with critical commentaries that put the theses and assumptions of the former in perspective. Overall, the book offers a unique and diverse range of perspectives on the meanings, methods, lessons, and challenges associated with the practice turn.

In some situations in which undesirable collective effects occur, it is very hard, if not impossible, to hold any individual reasonably responsible. Such a situation may be referred to as the problem of many hands. In this paper we investigate how the problem of many hands can best be understood and why, and when, it exactly constitutes a problem. After analyzing climate change as an example, we propose to define the problem of many hands as the occurrence of a gap in the distribution of responsibility that may be considered morally problematic. Whether a gap is morally problematic, we suggest, depends on the reasons why responsibility is distributed. This, in turn, depends, at least in part, on the sense of responsibility employed, a main distinction being that between backward-looking and forward-looking responsibility.

Most engineering reasoning in practice is about how to achieve some predetermined end. Despite its paramount importance, this form of reasoning has hardly been investigated in the literature.a The aim of this paper is therefore to explore the question to what extent technical norms can be said to have a truth-value, and under what conditions practical inferences are deductively valid. We take technical norms to be sentences of the form ‘If you want A, and you are in a situation B, then you ought to do X’. Von Wright’s standard example of making a hut habitable is our paradigm for practical inferences, where an obligation to act is deduced from an intention to realize an end, and an empirical constraint on how this end can be achieved. Our instrument of analysis is dynamic logic (PDL), since actions are aimed at changing the world. PDL already suffices to provide truth-conditions for technical norms. To accommodate the obligation in practical inferences we draw on John Jules Meyer’s deontic version of PDL. By paraphrasing ‘person P wants’ with ‘person P imposes an obligation on herself,’ we can give a plausible definition of the validity of practical inferences. In the discussion section, we address the issues of the reliability instead of truth-value of technical norms, and of the defeasibility of practical inferences as they occur in engineering practice.

When many people are involved in an activity, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint who is morally responsible for what, a phenomenon known as the ‘problem of many hands.’ This term is increasingly used to describe problems with attributing individual responsibility in collective settings in such diverse areas as public administration, corporate management, law and regulation, technological development and innovation, healthcare, and finance. This volume provides an in-depth philosophical analysis of this problem, examining the notion of moral responsibility and distinguishing between different normative meanings of responsibility, both backward-looking (accountability, blameworthiness, and liability) and forward-looking (obligation, virtue). Drawing on the relevant philosophical literature, the authors develop a coherent conceptualization of the problem of many hands, taking into account the relationship, and possible tension, between individual and collective responsibility. This systematic inquiry into the problem of many hands pertains to discussions about moral responsibility in a variety of applied settings.

The subject of the present inquiry is the approach-to-the-truth research, which started with the publication of Sir Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations. In the decade before this publication, Popper fiercely attacked the ideas of Rudolf Carnap about confirmation and induction; and ten years later, in the famous tenth chapter of Conjectures he introduced his own ideas about scientific progress and verisimilitude. Abhorring inductivism for its apprecia tion of logical weakness rather than strength, Popper tried to show that fallibilism could serve the purpose of approach to the truth. To substantiate this idea he formalized the common sense intuition about preferences, that is: B is to be preferred to A if B has more advantages andfewer drawbacks than A. In 1974, however, David Millerand Pavel Tichy proved that Popper's formal explication could not be used to compare false theories. Subsequently, many researchers proposed alternatives or tried to improve Popper's original definition.

In this article, we develop an approach for the moral assessment of research and development networks on the basis of the reflective equilibrium approach proposed by Rawls and Daniels. The reflective equilibrium approach aims at coherence between moral judgments, principles, and background theories. We use this approach because it takes seriously the moral judgments of the actors involved in R & D, whereas it also leaves room for critical reflection about these judgments. It is shown that two norms, namely reflective learning and openness and inclusiveness, which are used in the literature on policy and technological networks, contribute to achieving a justified overlapping consensus. We apply the approach to a case study about the development of an innovative sewage treatment technology and show how in this case the two norms are or could be instrumental in achieving a justified overlapping consensus on relevant moral issues.

In the 1980s, philosophical, historical and social studies of science underwent a change which later evolved into a turn to practice. Analysts of science were asked to pay attention to scientific practices in meticulous detail and along multiple dimensions, including the material, social and psychological. Following this turn, the interest in scientific practices continued to increase and had an indelible influence in the various fields of science studies. No doubt, the practice turn changed our conceptions and approaches of science, but what did it really teach us? What does it mean to study scientific practices? What are the general lessons, implications, and new challenges? This volume explores questions about the practice turn using both case studies and theoretical analysis. The case studies examine empirical and mathematical sciences, including the engineering sciences. The volume promotes interactions between acknowledged experts from different, often thought of as conflicting, orientations. It presents contributions in conjunction with critical commentaries that put the theses and assumptions of the former in perspective. Overall, the book offers a unique and diverse range of perspectives on the meanings, methods, lessons, and challenges associated with the practice turn

In this chapter we report on and discuss our empirical classification of innovative engineering projects. Basic innovative engineering projects are characterized by their overall goal and accompanying method. On the basis of this goal and method, we classify engineering projects as all falling in one of the following categories: (1) Descriptive knowledge as prevalent in the descriptive sciences; (2) Design of artefacts and processes; (3) Engineering Means-end knowledge; (4) Modeling (simulation serious gaming included); (5) Engineering optimization; and (6) Engineering mathematics. These categories are illustrated with examples drawn from our educational experiences. Formally our classification system is a partition: the categories are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Regarding its empirical power, we claim intra-departmental completeness for the projects that we have studied at the Departments of Mechanics and Applied Physics of Delft University of Technology; we hypothesize intra-academic completeness within Universities of Technology; and we hope for and encourage investigating extra-academic completeness regarding engineering in industry. Besides having significant consequences for the methodology of the engineering sciences, our categorization provides a new way to study empirically the relation between science and technology.

Dans cet article, nous discutons et développons la taxonomie de la connaissance tacite proposée par Collins dans son livre de 2010, Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Dans un premier temps, nous critiquons la définition et le nom d’une des trois catégories de connaissance tacite introduites par Collins, à savoir la connaissance tacite relationnelle (RTK). Après avoir expliqué quel principe fondamental individualise en fait RTK comme une catégorie distincte des deux autres catégories que sont la connaissance tacite somatique (STK) et la connaissance tacite collective (CTK), nous suggérons pour RTK un autre nom, plus en harmonie avec ce principe. Dans un second temps, nous mettons en évidence une possible ambiguïté dans l’interprétation de RTK, STK et CTK, et nous indiquons comment éviter les possibles confusions associées, notamment en introduisant plusieurs notations qui précisent celles de Collins. Les développements correspondants renforcent et spécifient un point implicitement suggéré par Collins dans son ouvrage, à savoir la forte asymétrie qui existe entre RTK d’un côté, et STK/CTK de l’autre. Dans un troisième temps, l’article s’emploie à prolonger et interroger dans de nouvelles directions la classification de Collins. Dans cet esprit, la possibilité de différents sous-types de RTK est introduite. L’un de ces sous-types pose la question d’une connaissance tacite individuelle et intellectuelle – cas qui ne semble pas avoir de place dans le cadre de Collins. La classification de Collins est également envisagée dans une perspective dynamique. Nous discutons en particulier la possibilité – non considérée par Collins – de transformations dynamiques entre certaines des trois catégories RTK, STK et CTK. Pour finir, nous faisons deux suggestions en vue d’éviter les confusions et malentendus lors de l’utilisation des distinctions de Collins : s’agissant des affirmations selon lesquelles une connaissance K est explicitable, explicite ou tacite, toujours préciser pour qui et quand ; s’agissant des affirmations selon lesquelles une connaissance K est explicite ou explicitable, ne pas s’en tenir à affirmer cela tout court, mais toujours préciser dans le(s)quel(s) des quatre sens différenciés par Collins (élaboration, transformation, mécanisation, explication scientifique).

Introduction Harry Collins is internationally recognized as a distinguished sociologist of science who writes creatively on a substantial number of varied subjects. He is acknowledged as one of the prominent specialists on the topic of tacit knowledge and has played an important role in the introduction of this topic into science studies. He has investigated the topic extensively, most famously through several case studies of physics [Collins 1974, 1984, 1985, 1990, 2001a,b, 2004], [Collins &...

In this paper, we show that Arrow’s well-known impossibility theorem is instrumental in bringing the ongoing discussion about verisimilitude to a more general level of abstraction. After some preparatory technical steps, we show that Arrow’s requirements for voting procedures in social choice are also natural desiderata for a general verisimilitude definition that places content and likeness considerations on the same footing. Our main result states that no qualitative unifying procedure of a functional form can simultaneously satisfy the requirements of Unanimity, Independence of irrelevant alternatives and Non-dictatorship at the level of sentence variables. By giving a formal account of the incompatibility of the considerations of content and likeness, our impossibility result makes it possible to systematize the discussion about verisimilitude, and to understand it in more general terms.

In this paper we introduce the overlapping design consensus for the construction of models in design and the related value judgments. The overlapping design consensus is inspired by Rawls’ overlapping consensus. The overlapping design consensus is a well-informed, mutual agreement among all stakeholders based on fairness. Fairness is respected if all stakeholders’ interests are given due and equal attention. For reaching such fair agreement, we apply Rawls’ original position and reflective equilibrium to modeling. We argue that by striving for the original position, stakeholders expel invalid arguments, hierarchies, unwarranted beliefs, and bargaining effects from influencing the consensus. The reflective equilibrium requires that stakeholders’ beliefs cohere with the final agreement and its justification. Therefore, the overlapping design consensus is not only an agreement to decisions, as most other stakeholder approaches, it is also an agreement to their justification and that this justification is consistent with each stakeholders’ beliefs. For supporting fairness, we argue that fairness qualifies as a maxim in modeling. We furthermore distinguish values embedded in a model from values that are implied by its context of application. Finally, we conclude that for reaching an overlapping design consensus communication about properties of and values related to a model is required.

There has been considerable work on practical reasoning in artificial intelligence and also in philosophy. Typically, such reasoning includes premises regarding means–end relations. A clear semantics for such relations is needed in order to evaluate proposed syllogisms. In this paper, we provide a formal semantics for means–end relations, in particular for necessary and sufficient means–end relations. Our semantics includes a non-monotonic conditional operator, so that related practical reasoning is naturally defeasible. This work is primarily an exercise in conceptual analysis, aimed at clarifying and eventually evaluating existing theories of practical reasoning (pending a similar analysis regarding desires, intentions and other relevant concepts).

In this paper we report on our experiences with using network analysis to discern and analyse ethical issues in research into, and the development of, a new wastewater treatment technology. Using network analysis, we preliminarily interpreted some of our observations in a Group Decision Room session where we invited important stakeholders to think about the risks of this new technology. We show how a network approach is useful for understanding the observations, and suggests some relevant ethical issues. We argue that a network approach is also useful for ethical analysis of issues in other fields of research and development. The abandoning of the overarching rationality assumption, which is central to network approaches, does not have to lead to ethical relativism

Kuipers' choice to let logical models of a theory represent the applications or evidence of that theory leads to various problems in ICR. In this paper I elaborate on four of them. 1. In contrast to applications of a theory, logical models are mutually incompatible. 2. An increase and a decrease of a set of models both represent an increase of logical strength; I call this the ICR paradox of logical strength. 3. The evidence logically implies the strongest empirical law. 4. A hypothesis and its negation can both be false. My conclusion therefore reads that we should not identify (newly invented) applications of a theory with its logical models, but with partial models that can be extended to the logical model(s) of the language used to formulate the theory. As an illustration I give a model theoretical account, based on partial models, of the HD-method and crucial experiments.