[It's graduation day from Thomas Kuhn, the structure of scientific revolutions!]
Ever since this debate last year, I've given a lot of thought into this topic. Part of it is because even until now, I felt I was arguing for my position irrationally, from emotional responds more than anything else. I've regret that position as soon as I pressed the "submit" button, and I've been looking for a more rational answer since then.
I've finally found part of the answers from a book that talks about the nature of science and scientific practioners. I will attempt to shed some light on this discussion from that perspective, a perspective entirely different from the ones we've used.
I will let you be the judge of whether that perspective is justified or not.
Quoted from the text of "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn:
Quote:
"In this essay, 'normal science' means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledge for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.
These achievements I shall henceforth refer to as 'paradigms'. By choosing it, I meant to suggest that some accepted examples of actual scientific practice- examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation that together- provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research. These are traditions which the historian describes under such rubrics as 'Copernican astronomy', Newtonian dynamics', and so on.
The study of paradigms, including many that are far more specialized than those named illustratively above, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will late practice. Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigm are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.
Science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence. What alternatives have they, or what competence? The applications given in texts are not there as evidence but because learning them is part of learning the paradigm at the base of current practice.
No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism."
|
If you buy the picture describe by Kuhn that scientists work together as a communities governed by 'paradigms', or bodies of theory, law, application, and instrumentations that provide models from which spring the traditions of scientific research, then perhaps it make sense that an Engineer have to receive a degree before they can officially become an Engineer.
Engineers work together as a community very much like scientists, in the sense that we also practice Engineering on shared paradigms, and are committed to the same rules and standards for that practice.
The shared commitment is a good thing because we don't have to waste time discussing the fundamentals. It's also good thing because we don't have to waste time arguing the definitions of things like "energy", "power", "current", "heat", and we can spend more time in the articulation of paradigms and trying to bring facts and theories closer and closer to agreements.
And in order to become a part of this community, students of engineering have to study these community governing paradigms, and particularly, the examples provide by the textbooks, because they allow us to learn the paradigm at the base of current practice. In engineering school, we learn which engineering theories are used to describe which part of the real world, we learn about how these theories are applied to real life by studying various applications, and we learn about the kind of instruments that have given us these theories and applications.
Ultimately, in engineering schools, we learn the standards that engineers base their practice on.
In other words, we have to go through all that because engineering schools provide us with the means to join the engineering community, not in title, but by teaching us shared standards and practices currently employed by that community. We go through engineering school because it also gives us access to the paradigm that currently governs the same engineering community, because once we are all on the same page, at least in terms of practice, standards, philosophy, or beliefs, we can go right into the profession of engineering and continue the work started by engineers who came before us.
We need an Engineer degree, or a piece of paper as some of you call it, because it proves that we've gone through the process of learning from institutions the shared standards, practices, philosophies, beliefs, and most importantly, the shared paradigms that the community is using.
Yes, it is true that you could learn about engineering without ever going to school. You could even learn the methods, applications, and solutions without ever though through school and getting a degree.
But, I would argue that if you don't go through engineering school to get a degree, you are missing out on chances to:
1. learn the complete standards and practices of the community of engineering,
2. learn to communicate effectively in the language employed by the engineering community,
3. learn about engineering effectively when other people, whether they are engineering students or teachers, challenge you and your knowledge and you challenge them back, and in the process, learn to apply and articulate the knowledge you gained about engineering,
I would also argue that going through engineering school also give you access to place you otherwise wouldn't have access to, such as
1. the academic environment, where new generations of engineers are being trained,
2. the higher researches not just in the field of engineering, but also in the field of science, mathematics, among other things (Philosophy, psychology, etc),
3. and in general, the community of students, faculty, and professionals who strive succeed in the academic environment.
Granted, you can learn about engineering, even how to become an engineer without ever going to school and getting a degree. Ultimately, you will be the one tp decide what you want out of life. You don't have to get an engineering degree, or become part of the community of engineers, to do what engineers do.
But considering Engineering is a practice of a community, there are many reasons that compels you to go through school, and get that engineering degree.
I can't justify any ultimate reason why you must get an engineering degree, so I will leave you with this final thought by repeating what Kuhn said earlier:
" The study of paradigms, including many that are far more specialized than those named illustratively above, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will late practice. Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigm are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition."
and this quote that keep coming up in my mind as I thought about this:
"No man is an island, entirely of itself…" - John Donne