PHILOSOPHY OF ENGINEERING

PHILOSOPHY OF ENGINEERING
PATTERSON NJI MBAKWA
Department of Mechanical Engineering Education, S2. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Country: Cameroon.
Date:1-January-2019


Contents
1.Introduction
1.1 Thesis to the Philosophy of Engineering
1.2 Historical Review of Philosophy of Engineering
1.3 Progress in Philosophy of Engineering at the Beginning of the 21st Century
1.4 The Trichotomy and Confused View of Engineering, Technology, and Science
2.Idealism of Engineering.
2.1 Epistemology, Ontology and Axiology Aspects of Engineering
3. Realism of engineering
4.Spirituality of engineering
5.Values of engineering
6.Conclusion
7.Acknowledgment


Abstract. 
The philosophy of Engineering, a new discipline of philosophy which considers what engineering is, what Engineers do, and how their work affects society. This includes aspects of ethics and aesthetics, as well as the ontology, epistemology, etc. that might be studied in, for example, the philosophy of science. The philosophy of Engineering came into being both in the East and West at the beginning of the 21st century. However, there are still some problems in philosophy of engineering that need to be worked out. This article aims at finding solutions to some of these problems. One other problem which is also very important is whether it is possible and necessary to establish philosophy of engineering in institutions. The yolk of this problem is the relationships among the philosophies of science, engineering, and technology. Therefore, this article looks at the trichotomy and confused view of these philosophies and also to propose that the philosophy of engineering be added into the curriculum of engineering undergraduate programs. Many differences exist between the scientific community and the engineering community. The field of engineering is a complex phenomenon and therefore philosophy of engineering is and should be an important branch of philosophy. The information in this articles will be collected solely from related and recognized published articles, journals, websites, and textbooks.

Keywords: Philosophy, Engineering, Science, Technology

1. Introduction.
1.1 Thesis to the Philosophy of Engineering 
The thesis of this article is that common presumptions to the contrary, philosophy is centrally important to engineering. When engineers and scholars of engineering, not to mention those who make use of engineering services dismiss philosophical analysis and reflection as marginal to the practice of engineering, they are mistaken on at least two counts: Historical and Professional. It is also the case, one would argue, that engineering is important to philosophy and that philosophers have made woefully insufficient efforts to appreciate and assess the technical realities that they too often presume to criticize. Were philosophers to set their own discipline in order with respect to engineering, philosophy would no doubt be even more important to engineering than is presently the case. Nevertheless, even granted the inadequate attention conferred on engineering by philosophy, philosophy is of critical and increasing significance to engineering. The argument in support of this thesis will, appropriately enough, rely in key respects on engineering experience. It will proceed by means of a historical review of engineering efforts to do philosophy in part as a self-defense against philosophical criticism. Then, in a central case study, the later sections of the article will, however, make a more reflective effort to speculate about the deepening relations between engineering and philosophy in an increasingly engineered world. Engineers are, I will finally suggest, the unacknowledged philosophers of the postmodern world.
1.2 Historical Review of Philosophy of Engineering. Philosophy of engineering is a new branch of philosophy that recently came into existence. At the end of the 20th century, the philosophy of science and philosophy of technology became well established. However,philosophy of engineering remained in the embryonic stage. In 1991, critical perspectives of nonacademic science and engineering, edited by Paul Durbin, was published in U.S.A.This book in which some authors focused their attention on philosophy of engineering is an important contribution to philosophy of engineering. It is the forth volume to the series research in technology studies, edited by Steven L.Goldman and stephen H.Cutcliff[27].In the forward of this book, “the resulting collection of essays ranges very widely indeed, from the technical analysis of the facet of engineering reasoning to the politics of design. Taken together, the essays begin by defining the parameters of an as yet virtually nonexistence discipline, namely the philosophy of engineering [27]. Although several authors of this book such as Goldman, Talf H.Broome, Billy T.Koen and Carl Mitcham, fully supported that the philosophy of engineering was a new discipline, some other writers did not make their support towards philosophy of engineering clear. In the introduction to the volume, Durbin was skeptical about philosophy of engineering being a new discipline. As the editor of the volume, he prudently avoided using the term "philosophy of engineering”. He wrote, “When I first conceived this project, I had in mind a narrower focus the so called R&D Community"[9].It seemed that he preferred to express the need for a philosophy of R&D rather than the need for a philosophy of engineering”. Talf H.Broome was an active pioneer of philosophy of engineering. In his essay, “Bridging Gaps of philosophy and engineering”, he mentioned three modes: philosophy in engineering, philosophy and engineering, and philosophy of engineering. He mentioned that philosophy of engineering was still in its embryonic stage at that time [27].Infact,the notion that the philosophy of engineering was still at the embryonic stage was also reflected in other authors' attitudes towards the establishment of the new discipline. At the same time in china, just as in the west, there were also a few Chinese scholars who tried to open up a new academic field: philosophy of engineering. Bo-Cong Li submitted presentation on "Engineering realism" to an international conference held in Beijing in 1992.The following year, he revised the paper and published it in studies in dialectics of nature [22]. At the end of the last century, while philosophy of science was centrally in the field of philosophy of technology, as pitt, Ihde and Rapp (1995) pointed out, was only situated in a marginal region of the field of philosophy. Since some philosophers regarded philosophy of engineering as a part of philosophy of technology, philosophy of engineering was just situated in a marginal region of the field of philosophy [10]. Goldman considered that engineering was an extremely complex phenomenon that deserved to be studied in its own right. He cited with emotion, “Today, then, philosophy of science is a fully accepted and highly and highly respected branch of philosophy, while philosophy of engineering carries as much Professional distinction as philosophy of parapsychology"[27]. The above mentioned facts shows that philosophy of engineering was not yet formed as a new branch of philosophy until the beginning of the 21st century and it is now becoming a distinct branch of philosophy that is considered as paralleled to philosophy of science and philosophy of technology [7].
1.3 Progress in Philosophy of Engineering at the Beginning of The 21st Century.
At the beginning of the 21st century (a new millennium), philosophy of engineering emerged as a distinct discipline of philosophical inquiry in the U.S, Western Europe as well as in China. The first several years of the 21st century witnessed the rise of philosophy of engineering both in the East and in the West. Some encouraging and significant progress in philosophy of engineering can be seen from publications, academic activities and in institutions. In the first place, four monographs on philosophy of engineering published one after the other between 2002-2007 have attracted considerable attention separately in China and the west.Li Bo-Cong's book, titled “An Introduction To The Philosophy Of Engineering" was published in China in 2002.In the following year, Louise L.Bucciarelli's book, titled "Engineering philosophy" came off the press in Europe in 2003.In 2007,two other monographs, philosophy of engineering edited by Yin Rui-yu,Wang Ying-Luo and Li Bo-Cong et al and philosophy of engineering edited by Jan F.Frederiksen,Steen H.Christensen and Jөrn Jensen et al, appeared separately in China and Europe. Besides these titles, another book also titled "philosophy of engineering" has been published by Goldman.Eventhough these books have the same title, it should be noted that their contents are different [27].In like manner, academic institutions have also been playing a significant role through the organization of national and international conferences, publication of yearly books and the organization of workshops especially in China, Europe and U.S.A. From the above mentioned facts, it is reasonable to assert that philosophy of engineering is rising in the East and West at the beginning of the 21st century [27].
1.4 The Trichotomy and Confused View of Engineering, Technology And Science.
In order to institute a branch of philosophy of engineering, we need an answer to the following crucial question. “Is it possible and necessary to form a new branch of philosophy called philosophy of engineering?". In the 20st century, scholars from various countries had much discussions on the mutual relationship among science, technology and engineering. Many scholars claimed that both technology and engineering are applied sciences. Under this view which one can called monism on science, technology and engineering, it is impossible and unnecessary to define philosophy of engineering as well as philosophy of technology as a new branch of philosophy because both are only a small part of philosophy of sciences. Another view of science, technology and engineering is dualism under which technology is independent of science and engineering is regard as part of engineering. Under this dualist view it is possible and necessary to define philosophy of technology as a new branch of philosophy. Science, engineering and technology are three kinds of different activities and have important differentiations. In the minds of most people, engineering and philosophy do not have much to do with each other. They are, as it were, giant islands separated by a large body of water [17].In fact, from the perspective of some members of the engineering community not to mention those of the philosophy community, the situation is even worse. Engineering is customarily divided into a number of different branches: Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Chemical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, Computer Engineering,etc.Similarly, philosophy includes different branches: logic, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Political philosophy, etc. Representatives of some of these areas of the philosophy world, especially ethics and aesthetics, seem to have mounted canons on their areas of the philosophy island in order to fire away at selected domains of the engineering world [17]. Martin Heidegger (1954), one of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century, has even gone so far as to argue that all such ethical and aesthetic failures are grounded in a fundamental engineering attitude toward the world that reduces nature to resources in a dominating Gestell or enframing [21].Heidegger is perhaps more subtle on this point than is always recognized. But on one common interpretation, Heidegger can be construed to say that Herbert Simon's \sciences of the artificial" [Simon (1969)], for example, promote a constrained and constraining ontology of mathematical reduction and an epistemology of virtual reality [25]. Merchant (1980), Feminist critics have even associated engineering with patriarchal domination, the death of nature, and the loss of world centering care [20]. To mention in passing some representative contributors to this school or tradition, Ernst Kapp (1808-1896), a contemporary of Karl Marx, although originally educated as a philosopher, Kapp emigrated from Germany to central Texas, where he became a pioneer and developed a view of technology as a complex extension or projection of human faculties and activities. In a subsequent articulation of this philosophical anthropology of technology, he became the person to coin the phrase “philosophy of engineering” [3]. Enge-lmeier (1855-c.1941), one of the founders of Russian professional engineering. A hundred years ago Engel-Meier, under the banner of the phrase "philosophy of technology”, argued for a more than technical education of the engineering profession. If engineers are to take their rightful place in world affairs, he argued, they must be educated not only in their technical fields but also in knowledge about the social impact and influence of technology[3]. As a final example of the engineering philosophy tradition, Florman (1976), a New York civil engineer has developed a related interpretation of \the existential pleasures of engineering" that both responds to many of its contemporary philosophical critics and defends engineering as in itself a fundamental human activity [11].Engineering is not only instrumental to other human ends, it is in itself an existentially meaningful activity. Engineering possess inherent or intrinsic as well as instrumental or extrinsic value [11]. In the first instance, then, philosophy is important to engineering, because there are many who philosophically criticize engineering. Out of self-defense, if for no other reason, engineers should know something about philosophy in order to handle their critics. Moreover, some engineers have in fact taken up this challenge.
2. Idealism of Engineering.
Questions about the ideological underpinnings of engineering are not new, as evidenced by the efforts of a handful of pioneering historians and sociologists who dared tackle the topic. Edwin Layton's classic, “The Revolt of the Engineers”, Layton (1986), for example, showed how the professional ideals and aspirations embraced by many American engineers during the Progressive Era stood in marked tension with business imperatives and bureaucratic loyalty and with the latter ultimately prevailing[6]. Noble's America by Design (Noble 1979), persuasively portrayed a growing alignment of the U.S engineering profession with the logic of market capitalism and an almost mystical ideology of quasi-autonomous technology. Both works helped contextualize the profession's development in America from the late 19th to mid-20th century, including by demonstrating how prevailing engineering values and attitudes were frequently interchangeable with business ethos, and powerfully inculcated through dominant pathways of education and career development [23]. Still other works have helped show how partially unique configurations of ideology and engineering have emerged in other national and cultural contexts, as reflected in Alder's( 1999, p. xii) argument that the early modern history of the engineering profession in France was \energized by a radical ideology that justified social hierarchy by reference to national service"[6]. A growing body of cross national comparative research by scholars such as Downey and Lucena (2004) has also more broadly shown how engineers respond to while at the same time likely shaping prevalent codes of meaning, such as dominant understandings of what counts as national progress, or what it means for engineers to serve government and/or private industry[14]. As these works make clear, the ideological commitments of engineers and engineering not only profoundly inflect what it means to be an engineer or practice engineering, such commitments may also vary considerably by time and space. The chapters in this section continue and extend these traditions of scholarship. They do so by reminding us of many important, recurring questions about how the ideological foundations of engineering as a modern discipline and profession resonate (or, perhaps just as importantly may fail to resonate) with other prevalent beliefs and values -whether economic, technological, political, social, cultural, or otherwise. In and Jesiek's chapter, for example, looks China as an underexplored yet increasingly important context for investigating the ideology-engineering nexus. More specifically, the authors identify three relevant ideological currents that can enable a better understanding of the intellectual context of engineering in China: Confucianism, Marxism and economic pragmatism. Starting from three questions that are traditionally raised in studies of engineering ethics and professionalism by U.S scholars (and which often take a Parsonian-functionalist approach, as represented by the authors' reference to Davis' work), they first give the most common answers. Yet by pushing their analysis in directions more sensitive to the Chinese ideological context allows them to propose alternate answers to these questions, thereby revealing some of the blind spots that may occur when scholars view partially unique local cultures of engineering through Western lenses. More practically, their chapter potently suggests how successful multi-national collaborations in engineering may require keen sensitivity to the relevant intellectual environments of engineering education and professional practice. Amy Slaton's chapter to some extent brings our focus back to the U.S, albeit with many broader implications. She begins by describing the historical dominance of two ideological logics in engineering. The first of these is technocratic, which paints engineering as ultimately an apolitical enterprise that can be separated from its social foundations. The second logic she proposes is meritocratic, which privileges individual ability and responsibility to succeed in engineering while demonstrating technical excellence. Consistent with a neoliberal worldview, these two logics pose considerable challenges for those who identify with movements toward democratization, including by promoting a far more inclusive, participatory, and liberatory climate of technical education and professional practice. Hence, pivotally important for the author are questions about how the content and aims of engineering are inextricably linked to the matter of who can be (or become) an engineer, not to mention what counts as epistemic authority in engineering. These themes are illustrated through a rich variety of literature and examples, from discussion of the trials and travails of various diversity and inclusion initiatives to explorations of how some specific student populations (e.g., those with low socioeconomic status or a typical kinds of cognitive disabilities) are “othered" against the backdrop of a powerfully normative status quo in engineering [6]. Finally, Cech and Sherick's contributions, serves as a fine compliment to Slaton's work given its focus on the notion of an “ideology of depoliticization." In summary, their chapter nicely captures the pervasive view that the technical dimensions of engineering work can and should be separated from any associated political, social, or cultural considerations. This kind of ideological boundary work which might be contrasted with the sort of strategic politicization" described in Zhu and Jesiek's discussion of Marxism and engineering in the Chinese context, projects a sanitized image of engineering as ultimately divorceable from anything deemed subjective, sociocultural, or humanistic, that is, anything \non-technical". As a consequence, engineering is portrayed as not only technocratic, following Slaton, but also somehow above ideology, artfully concealing the inherently value-laden and social character of engineering work behind a veil of purported objectivity and rationality. Of particular note in this chapter, is the authors' discussion of how engineering education helps perpetuate this ideology, including by protecting and preserving historically dominant but increasingly outdated images of the profession's epistemological, ethical, and ontological foundations. In turn, this hegemonic reproduction poses considerable impediments to reforming and transforming engineering faculty courses, curricula, and culture to meaningfully breach the boundaries between the technical and sociocultural[6]. In summary, the chapters comprising this section offer a compelling invitation for further studies that help enhance our understanding of the ideological considerations that undergrid the education of engineers and their practice as professionals. Each in their own way, these authors invite us to increase our awareness of the importance of the intellectual, cultural, and ideological contexts associated with both the objects of our research, i.e., engineers and engineering, and our own work as scholars. And if such ideological contents are offered, imposed or revealed in very explicit ways in certain contexts, what about the implicit beliefs we no longer question because we no longer see them? As these chapters suggest, considerations such as free market principles, efficiency, economic growth, political ideology, and techno-optimism are often inextricably bound up with questions about what counts as engineering and who can be an engineer. This section can be seen as opening up opportunities for further efforts to expand the breadth and depth of ideological considerations under consideration, including through cross Institutional and crossnational comparative studies [6].
2.1 Epistemology, Ontology and Axiology Aspects of Engineering.
In the tradition of Cartesian philosophy, epistemology, ontology and axiology deal with separate domains of reality and these branches of philosophy are often pursued independently of one another. Ontology reflects on and specifies the metaphysics of existence and reality, epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of our knowledge of reality, and axiology is preoccupied with values and also is a collective term for ethics and aesthetics, philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth or the foundation of these fields, However, the study of engineering practices challenges this departmentalization of philosophical reflections,and it seriously challenges the Cartesian ambition to find a firm epistemological basis for our knowledge claims about reality. Studying Engineering work reveals a plethora of complex processes involving many different kinds of assumptions, knowledge, techniques, values, and procedures. Engineers are quite often involved in difficult decision processes involving serious uncertainties where relevant knowledge in many cases is lacking [5]. On the other hand engineers can also be overwhelmed by data and information [28].Contrary to how it is in natural science, as in nuclear physics, for example, engineers are not able to restrict their work to a clearly delimited domain that can be studied by applying a restricted class of well-defined methods and procedures[13].In many cases engineering decision processes do not only concern genuine technical problems, but are entangled with social,economic,ethical, and political issues [28].So, when discussing epistemological problems related to engineering work and research it is necessary to bear in mind that engineering problem solving often takes place in situations where;
 serious uncertainties are involved,
 relevant knowledge is lacking, or is undiscernible due to the overload of data, and
 the problem under consideration has essential social, economic, ethical, or political consequences. Engineering work is thus often conducted in complex and hierarchical settings [26] that give no straightforward directions for performance. An epistemology of engineering has to address these kind of complications. Engineering decision-making and problem solving take place in all kinds of practical situations in society. It is the practical situation that defines the scope of an acceptable solution. If a possible solution does not fit into customary practice, it will not be accepted unless it is modified in a way that fits practice, or until customary practice itself is changed. So, engineering decision-making and problem solving are heavily practice dependent and reliant on the normativities inherent in situations. That means, for instance, that the intention of the engineer does not necessarily coincide with intentions that dominate activities in practical life outside the engineering profession. Such different intentions must converge in order for a solution to be accepted as valid.Consequently,when discussing validity of engineering reasoning it is important to make clear that criteria of validity in many cases cannot be defined in a purely technical sense, but must pay regard to the various views and normativities that dominate practical life. In engineering questions of right and wrong, questions of normativity traditionally dealt with in the discipline of moral philosophy and ethics de-facto,affects the directionality and pursuit of engineering knowledge. Efficiency is a presumed good of high importance: what engineer, or what human being, seeks inefficiency? On the otherhand, what kind of efficiency do we seek? As Newberry writes, quoting Billy Koen, “In a society of cannibals, the engineer will try to design the most efficient kettle"[5].Meditation on efficiency and optimization as unqualified goods leads to the conclusion that they are not: their goodness depends in part on the ends or goals for which they, in turn, are sought. If we do not examine these ends, we might enjoy “micro-efficiency”, but this certainly does not ensure a general result in which we can be confident or of which we can be proud. To the contrary, the efficient manufacture of inefficient products is no one's ultimate goal. It is of course the main focus of engineering work and research to efficiently solve practical and often very complex problems as they appear in our modern society, but complexities in society lead to further complexities and create new kinds of problems that require new kinds of engineering. Modern technical problems are so complicated that new advanced scientific methods and theories are needed in order to cope with them. That means that engineering decision-making and problem solving are, and must be, science based.So,engineers must not only have a clear understanding of the practice they are engaged in, their analyses and activities require advanced scientific methods and theories. In a sense, one distinctive feature of a modern engineer is that he or she must be capable of identifying a practical problem, putting it into an abstract scientific framework, and then coming up with a scientific solution that lives up to the practical needs. This leads to other complications of engineering epistemology. Engineering work comprises both abstract theoretical and normativized concrete practical knowledge, and both kinds of knowledge are relevant and must be interlinked. However, scientific abstraction and engineering concretization pull in opposite directions, for which reason the interlinking of these two forms of knowledge is a serious challenge [24]. As engineering work situations are part of complex social practices there are often many other groups of professionals involved. In many cases engineers must consult political decision-makers, economists, scientists, and craftsmen. In order to work out a design or solve a problem the engineer must be able to communicate with other players within a heterogeneous project group and navigate within complex organizational structures. A design proposal or work plan is thus often a compromise made within hetero- generous groups, organizational textures, and interrelated social formations. It is an important engineering skill to be able to understand and compose compromises that eventually will lead to sustainable solutions. Understanding these complex patterns of professional conducts, performances, interactions, and negotiations places other demands on studying engineering activities. Drawing on practice theoretical perspectives, understanding engineering work would benefit from replacing the Cartesian epistemology of the individual knower with a relational and ontological perspective on engineering knowledge that focuses on the situated doings of engineers thus developing a different ontology of knowing[5] It is important to notice that many engineering designs and constructions address complex problems with huge social,economic,and political consequences. They may lead to great benefits but at the same time they may be very risky and might lead to serious catastrophes. As a consequence of this, engineering work will as a rule involve ethical issues. In fact, it radicalizes ethical problems due to the fact that engineering often proposes novel solutions that have far-reaching consequences and implications. That is evident if one looks at the consequences of the weapons industry, the use of pesticides and other modern polluting chemicals, or development of nuclear energy production. But also, less dramatic engineering designs e.g. in software development, surveillance technologies may affect human conduct in ways that call for ethical reflections.So, ethical issues are an integral part of an engineering problem situation. They are related both to the evaluation of useful consequences of possible solutions and to negative ones such as possible risks, issues of sustainable production, possible violation of human rights, surveillance, etc. How ethical and other value judgments are integrated in and cooperate with other forms of engineering knowledge is an important open epistemological issue. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge. But there are many different forms of knowledge(s) and it is impossible to give a common and unambiguous characterization of all forms independently of how they are situated [8] and enacted within social practices. To understand engineering knowledge we need to contextualize it. As we have seen, engineering work requires knowledge on many different levels and it is important that these very different forms do cooperate during engineering work. So, engineering epistemology concerns practical, context-dependent as well as abstract, supposedly con- text free knowledge. It must consider questions of objectivity as well as subjective, situation -dependent, or value-dependent questions, and it must cope with uncertain and partial knowledge. Karen Barad has in fact suggested that instead of speaking of epistemology, ontology, and ethics as compartmentalized perspectives, we should preferably pay attention to the interrelation of these domains. The separation of epistemology from ontology is a reverberation of a metaphysics that assumes and inherent difference between human and nonhuman, subject and object, mind and body, matter and discourse. Onto-epistemology the study of practices of knowing in being is probably a better way to think about the kind of understandings that we need to come to terms with how specific intra-actions matter. Or, for that matter, what we need is something like an ethico-onto-epistemology {an appreciation of the intertwining of ethics,knowing,and being since each intra-action matters, since the possibilities for what the world may become call out in the pause that precedes each breath before a moment comes into being and the world is remade again, because the becoming of the world is a deeply ethical matter[2]. How to integrate all these different forms of knowledge in a rational and responsible way in concrete problem solving situations is thus the big issue for engineering epistemology. Anders Buch(2005) reflects on studies of engineering practices and proposes a research agenda inspired by practice theory for advancing engineering studies In the practice theoretical perspective, epistemological questions are transformed into ontological ones. Following practice theory he proposes that it is necessary to study the situated lived lives and social practices of engineers in order to understand the ways engineers perceive, interact with, and reflect on their environment. He outlines the theoretical and methodological presumptions of the practice theoretical perspective and points to the advantages of adopting this perspective in engineering studies. The practice theoretical perspective is preoccupied with identifying and describing mechanisms of change and stability in social practices, in organizations, and in social reality in general. It can thus serve as a valuable framework for addressing issues and concerns in relation to engineering education reform initiatives and interventions and design efforts in engineering work practices. Pieter Vermaas (2011), contemplates the changing role of the engineer in design processes. Design- ing has been viewed as a quintessential and defining characteristic of engineering practices, but Ver-maas documents how this trademark has in fact undergone fundamental changes over the last five decades. Originally, the engineer was positioned in the role of an assistant supplying technical solutions in design processes. But roles have shifted and engineers have increasingly involved themselves in `non-technical' elements in the design process, such as needs formulation and problem formulation in the design process, to infact taking upon themselves to actively suggest and identify latent needs of users. This suggests that the engineers have come to play a more significant role in all phases of the processes, but it equally suggests that engineering can no longer be confined to the technological domain. Design processes have developed in ways that give still more authority to engineers, but at the price of pushing engineering to non-technical domains of philosophical reflections,and it seriously challenges the Cartesian ambition to find a firm epistemological basis for our knowledge claims about reality. Studying Engineering work reveals a plethora of complex processes involving many different kinds of assumptions, knowledge, techniques, values, and procedures. As a basic starting position and not relying on any emerging philosophy of engineering it is worth recalling Ludwig Wittgenstein's view that `Philosophy is not a theory but an activity'[29].It is attractive to consider the following five branches that have been thought and written for centuries to put some structure on such philosophical activity:- namely, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic and Aesthetics.
3 Realism of Engineering.
 Realism is a term that has different meaning and its meanings are based on the context it is pproached.In philosophy, realism is the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them[1]. In the 1980's, of last century, philosophers had a heated argument about scientific reality. While some of the philosophers advocated scientific realism, others advocate for anti-realism. Inspired by scientific realism during this period,Li BO-Cong, presented his paper titled, “engineering realism"[27].In his paper, he mentioned that "although both scientific realism and engineering realism belong to realism, they are quite different. He went on to mentioned that a series of new concept has to be presented and discussed in the field of philosophy of engineering"[27]. Li BO-Cong, stated that "while the main issue of scientific realism consists in interpretation of scientific reality, the main issue of engineering realism consists in making engineering reality"[27].In his findings on engineering realism, he found that the progress from scientific realism to engineering realism, meant a "Columbia navigation, a navigation from the land of philosophy of science to the land of philosophy of engineering. But not a Copernican revolution in the field of philosophy of science. From the view point of Li BO-Cong, engineering reality consists of two kinds of reality; material engineering reality resulting from engineering activities and social engineering reality as subjects carrying out engineering activities[27]. In the field of engineering reality, attention must be paid to engineering communities. Among various communities of society, Engineering community is of an extreme importance. Engineering community is larger than the scientific community.Especially,the engineering community plays a more important role in society. While philosophers paid great attention to the scientific community, they neglected the engineering community nearly completely. However the engineering community should be the focus of attention to the field of philosophy of engineering and sociology of engineering. Scientific and engineering communities are different in their goals orientation and memberships. Scientific community pursues the truth, while engineering community pursues the benefits. Scientific community is comprise of scientists, while the engineering community is comprise of engineers, managers ,workers,investors,and other stakeholders. There are lots of important and complex issues about engineering community, such as why different individuals have to form an engineering activity community, such as a firm, how they organize an engineering activity community, and what kinds of relations exist in the engineering activity community and so on. Much attention is needed to study the engineering due to complexity. From the point of view of the engineering community, Karl Popper's theory of "Three worlds" has some serious defect[27]. Popper regarded the third world or world 3 as the essential products of the human mind. From the view of philosophy of engineering, in addition to the three worlds proposed by Popper, there should be the forth world or world 4 which is parallel to world 3[27]. World 4 should be regarded as the essential products of the human body. It is the engineering community which creates objects that consist of world 4.While world 3 comprises the spiritual products, world 4 comprises material products. Although both world 4 and world 1 are material worlds, they are quantitatively different. The former is a natural world and the latter consists of artifacts such as power station,railroads,airlines,computers,and clothes created by humans. Base on philosophy of engineering, a new form of realism can be dubbed, known as "engineering realism"[27].In the field of traditional realist philosophy, philosopher focus their attention on what reality is, while in the field of philosophy of engineering, philosophers focus their attention on why and how engineering reality is created and used by engineering community or human beings. According to Popper, world 2 refers to human minds, but according to theory of four worlds, world 2 refers to engineering community that consists of individual as the unity of mind and body [27].Because the real agents of engineering activities are human groups with machines, issues of organizations and institutions become supremely important.
4 Spirituality of Engineering.
 Engineering is an excellent subject to study as a Christian, but it is not without its challenges. Perhaps the greatest of these is the apparent irrelevance of religious faith to the physical world a myth perpetuated by atheists and by some Christians who emphasised the division between the body and the soul, the physical and the spiritual. As the former U.S President and mining engineer Herbert Hoover wrote, “Engineering is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realisation in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes. . . Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer's high privilege"[12]. Hoover's quote provides a good definition of what an engineer is, but the Christian or Muslim engineer's highest priority and primary motivation is to glorify God. A Christian or Muslim engineer is someone who uses their God given gifts of specialist technical knowledge and practical abilities to transform creation into an image of what the new creation will be like, so that God is glorified and society is improved. Many of the technological challenges described in Scripture are on very large scales: Noah's ark, building the temple, reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem and so on. However, in all these cases the emphasis was on the heart of the individual. Local skill and labour was used, particularly in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. In the construction of the tabernacle, specific tasks were undertaken by Spirit filled craftsmen. The status of craftsmen depended entirely on their God-given talents and to what use they put them to. Conversely, craftsmen who make idols are described as \nothing but men" who \will be brought down to terror and infamy." When Paul in the Christian holy bible visited Athens it was among the most advanced cities at the time. Even today the ruins remain a testament to the Athenians' skill. In his commentary on Acts (from Holy Bible), John Stott says that Paul \might have been spellbound by the sheer splendor of the city's architecture, history and wisdom." However Paul saw their works in their hearts and recognised that they did not glorify God. Paul placed particular emphasis and value on working with the hands and demonstrated his exibility in supporting his preaching ministry with practical work including tent making as the need arose. Engineers are practical people. As such, it is tempting for engineers to concentrate entirely on physical realities and physical needs such as building bridges, designing aeroplanes,electronic equipment and so on, rather than to ponder philosophical or religious questions. Student engineers are not usually portrayed as being hostile to religious belief or as people with strong moral convictions, but as apathetic towards religion. Whereas some religions ignore or downplay the importance of the physical, the Christian faith is most fully expressed by a holistic understanding of the relationship between body and soul and should address physical and spiritual needs equally. Faith without deeds is dead. But works of deeds without faith a category which could incorporate much of modern engineering. We know that even great works of charity are meaningless without Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest technological engineering project will not succeed without a complete appreciation of the social purpose and the spiritual dimension. The Tower of Babel gives a strong case study of the folly of embarking on a civil engineering project with cutting-edge technologies whilst ignoring God, \Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves."[12]. In recent years, professional bodies such as the Engineering Council have begun to appreciate the need to incorporate and embed ethics, sustainability and \the global dimension" into undergraduate curricula.Often these terms are poorly defined; hence, many engineers are ill-equipped to address such non-physical concepts. The Christian engineer has a clear advantage and moral framework to contribute to discussions on these topics. Technology is often presented as morally neutral. For instance, J. Robert Oppenheimer is quoted as saying, “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb." However, historical events such as the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the threat of a full-scale nuclear war have led many to question.Oppenheimer's view that technology can or should exist in a moral vacuum. A key part of being an engineer is being able to solve problems. An engineer observes a need in society and using specialist knowledge creates an artefact to fulfil that need, thus improving the quality of life. However in the West many of the expressed needs of the people are not really needs, but desires. Today it seems most people cannot function without the latest mobile phone, but go back twenty years and we coped without many modern technologies. Consider Maslow's hierarchy or pyramid of needs, where basic requirements for survival are at the bottom and as we move up the pyramid the needs are more for institutions become supremely important. 4 Spirituality of Engineering. Engineering is an excellent subject to study as a Christian, but it is not without its challenges. Perhaps the greatest of these is the apparent irrelevance of religious faith to the physical world a myth perpetuated by atheists and by some Christians who emphasised the division between the body and the soul, the physical and the spiritual. As the former U.S President and mining engineer Herbert Hoover wrote, “Engineering is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realisation in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes. . . Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer's high privilege"[12]. Hoover's quote provides a good definition of what an engineer is, but the Christian or Muslim engineer's highest priority and primary motivation is to glorify God. A Christian or Muslim engineer is someone who uses their God given gifts of specialist technical knowledge and practical abilities to transform creation into an image of what the new creation will be like, so that God is glorified and society is improved. Many of the technological challenges described in Scripture are on very large scales: Noah's ark, building the temple, reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem and so on. However, in all these cases the emphasis was on the heart of the individual. Local skill and labour was used, particularly in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. In the construction of the tabernacle, specific tasks were undertaken by Spirit filled craftsmen. The status of craftsmen depended entirely on their God-given talents and to what use they put them to. Conversely, craftsmen who make idols are described as "nothing but men" who \will be brought down to terror and infamy." When Paul in the Christian holy bible visited Athens it was among the most advanced cities at the time. Even today the ruins remain a testament to the Athenians' skill. In his commentary on Acts (from Holy Bible), John Stott says that Paul \might have been spellbound by the sheer splendor of the city's architecture, history and wisdom." However Paul saw their works in their hearts and recognised that they did not glorify God. Paul placed particular emphasis and value on working with the hands and demonstrated his exibility in supporting his preaching ministry with practical work including tent making as the need arose. Engineers are practical people. As such, it is tempting for engineers to concentrate entirely on physical realities and physical needs such as building bridges, designing aeroplanes,electronic equipment and so on, rather than to ponder philosophical or religious questions. Student engineers are not usually portrayed as being hostile to religious belief or as people with strong moral convictions, but as apathetic towards religion. Whereas some religions ignore or downplay the importance of the physical, the Christian faith is most fully expressed by a holistic understanding of the relationship between body and soul and should address physical and spiritual needs equally. Faith without deeds is dead. But works of deeds without faith a category which could incorporate much of modern engineering. We know that even great works of charity are meaningless without Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest technological engineering project will not succeed without a complete appreciation of the social purpose and the spiritual dimension. The Tower of Babel gives a strong case study of the folly of embarking on a civil engineering project with cutting-edge technologies whilst ignoring God, \Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves."[12]. In recent years, professional bodies such as the Engineering Council have begun to appreciate the need to incorporate and embed ethics, sustainability and "the global dimension" into undergraduate curricula.Often these terms are poorly defined; hence, many engineers are ill-equipped to address such non-physical concepts. The Christian engineer has a clear advantage and moral framework to contribute to discussions on these topics. Technology is often presented as morally neutral. For instance, J. Robert Oppenheimer is quoted as saying, “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb." However, historical events such as the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the threat of a full-scale nuclear war have led many to question.Oppenheimer's view that technology can or should exist in a moral vacuum. A key part of being an engineer is being able to solve problems. An engineer observes a need in society and using specialist knowledge creates an artefact to fulfil that need, thus improving the quality of life. However in the West many of the expressed needs of the people are not really needs, but desires. Today it seems most people cannot function without the latest mobile phone, but go back twenty years and we coped without many modern technologies. Consider Maslow's hierarchy or pyramid of needs, where basic requirements for survival are at the bottom and as we move up the pyramid the needs are more for convenience, comfort and to give purpose to life. While some countries are still trying to provide solutions to meet basic survival needs, in the West, for the most part, we are much more concerned with designing the next clever gadget to make our lives that tiny bit easier. A more worrying thought is that some engineering has become so commercialized that the main purpose it fulfils is to make money through consumerism. We are becoming technology junkies; we do not buy the latest product out of necessity any more, but out of greed.Organisations such as Engineers Against Poverty, Practical Action and Engineers without Borders UK, seek to reclaim engineering as an essential means to meet physical needs for survival for the majority of the world who are in desperate need of sanitation, shelter and food. Much current engineering practice is unsustainable; for instance, in the UK we are consuming raw materials such as steel, cement and fossil fuels at unprecedented rates. Muslim and Christian stewardship has been defined by Charles Bugg as: “Utilising and managing all resources God provides for the glory of God and the betterment of His creation." The drive for efficiency is at the heart of much of engineering, and sits comfortably with Muslim and Christian stewardship of land, natural resources and talents. However, there is also pressure on the engineer to design for failure, so that products will need to be purchased on a continual basis by consumers, rather than on a once-for-all basis. He disposable culture in which we live presents a challenge for Muslim and Christian engineers[12]. convenience, comfort and to give purpose to life. While some countries are still trying to provide solutions to meet basic survival needs, in the West, for the most part, we are much more concerned with designing the next clever gadget to make our lives that tiny bit easier. A more worrying thought is that some engineering has become so commercialized that the main purpose it fulfils is to make money through consumerism. We are becoming technology junkies; we do not buy the latest product out of necessity any more, but out of greed.Organisations such as Engineers Against Poverty, Practical Action and Engineers without Borders UK, seek to reclaim engineering as an essential means to meet physical needs for survival for the majority of the world who are in desperate need of sanitation, shelter and food. Much current engineering practice is unsustainable; for instance, in the UK we are consuming raw materials such as steel, cement and fossil fuels at unprecedented rates. Muslim and Christian stewardship has been defined by Charles Bugg as: “Utilising and managing all resources God provides for the glory of God and the betterment of His creation." The drive for efficiency is at the heart of much of engineering, and sits comfortably with Muslim and Christian stewardship of land, natural resources and talents. However, there is also pressure on the engineer to design for failure, so that products will need to be purchased on a continual basis by consumers, rather than on a once-for-all basis. He disposable culture in which we live presents a challenge for Muslim and Christian engineers[12].
 5 Values of Engineering.
This part of the article explore the values that engineers do or should act upon in their professional work, as well as the way their work influences the values and,indeed,the entire lives of those who live in a world that is increasingly engineered. As Winston Churchill puts it from a quotation borrowed from Sylvain Lavelle[5],\We shape our dwellings; thereafter, our dwellings shape us." In other words, the interplay between the values engineers share, and the way engineering in turn shapes the values of us all, our physical and metaphorical \dwellings," is of special interest in these chapter[15]. Since the values pursued by engineers will often be influenced by their educations, the professional associations to which they belong, the society of their fellow engineers, and the larger historical and social contexts in which they live and work the article in this part take up the question of engineering values in diverse ways. One question several chapters ask, however, is whether the engineering profession makes engineers more ethical, or whether it infact narrows their vision in some or is it both?. Martin Meganck, “On the Normativity of Professionalism" suggests that it is perhaps neither: “professionalism" for engineers differs wildly across historical and cultural contexts and, in the final analysis, the foundation for professional ethics may rest most basically on one's "ordinary morality," rather than on any professional ethics that might be imparted simply by dint of being an engineer way[4]. Other work in this part suggests that while the philosophical foundations of engineering ethics may rest on one's "ordinary morality," the presence of engineering cultures shapes and is shaped by engineering attitudes toward the political.Christelle Didier and Kristoff Talin,argued that political valences such as a tendency to discount or underestimate ecological challenges are endemic to French engineering, thus putting engineers out of step with general French sentiment[5].Jen Schneider, Abraham Tidwell, and Savannah Fitzwater, demonstrate this mechanism in detail in the case of nuclear engineers, who remain largely apolitical on the question of climate change, while the industry around them constructs contradictory narratives and silences about the connection between global warming and nuclear power[5]. Carl Mitcham and Wang Nan, traces the historical development of engineering ethics, beginning with its early emergence in the German context. This early history would surprise those who believe engineering ethics began in the U.S.; they might also be surprised to see China included alongside the Netherlands and Denmark as key countries contributing to engineering ethics as we know it today. This decentering of American and European hegemony adds nuance to our understandings of history [5]. Wayne Ambler’s, “Guiding Gulliver: Challenges for Ethical Engineering" directs our attention to the ways in which politics and economics shape the kinds of questions engineers are called to ad- dress. Engineering is powerful, Ambler argues, yet we do not often enough ask, “What ends should this power serve?" How is "Gulliver" to be guided in a political age in which corporations wield outsize power, the philosophical zeitgeist is one of moral relativism, and we must heed national imperatives? This leads to a complex landscape indeed for determining what "good" engineering is for[5]. Returning to the influences that act upon engineers, it is no small matter that engineers are professionals and belong to professional associations, at least in most countries. Consequently, they have special codes of ethics to follow, and they have an influential group identity, one they would like to protect and enhance, but to say that this is important is not yet to say what effect this influence has in complex cases. We must take up the complex question of what constitutes human welfare, and we will need tools such as everyday ethics in order to have such a conversation. This is because the shaping and communication of engineering values happens both implicitly and explicitly, and these values can be invoked and inculcated in contradictory ways. The engineering profession may encourage certain values, for example, even if it does not insist upon them in explicit codes of ethics. Possible examples include eco-skepticism as discussed by Didier and Talin[5],and the effects of climate change on the standards used in planning and building nuclear power plants by Schneider.Tidwell,and Fitzwater[5]. The effort to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses in power production has reopened and strengthened the case for nuclear power, but increasing climate change should also be taken into account when designing and operating a power plant, as the events at Fukushima demonstrated with special clarity. Research presented by Schneider et al [5] showed, however, that there is very little professional discourse on this issue within the engineering community. An important observation in itself, for it cries out for remedy, it also suggests the profession's blind spot may be the result of an insular culture that would affect other issues as well. There maybe significant \talk" about climate change in relation to nuclear power, for example, but the quality of the talk and who is engaged in it, and to what ends matters. The smart grid is coming, and engineers will have much to do in determining the final form it takes. High expectations await it, not only as a way of fixing the problems that grow with the aging of the current grid, but especially as a way of improving our energy efficiency and increasing the fraction of our energy that comes from renewable sources. But while these great expectations may prove justified, the new grid will not only have to overcome substantial technical problems but will also need to face social and ethical challenges, including ones involving privacy,security,and equity.Joe Herbert and Timothy Kostyk[5], clarify these challenges by attention to discussion in both the EU and the USA and with reference to similar problems affecting other technologies, such as the vulnerability of Iranian nuclear development to US and Israeli cyber warfare. Since these challenges are not merely technical in nature, the article concludes with some consideration of ways their resolution will depend on reform in engineering education. While all the articles in this part reflect on engineering education and the general need for it to reach beyond narrow technical training, Mitcham and Nan[5],make it their focus to trace the way engineering education has become a subject of philosophical focus. This emergence of interest in the philosophical study of engineering ethics or one might say in the relationship between responsibility and the ever growing power of technology has taken somewhat different shape depending on time and place. To cite but a single example, the role of engineers in the German war effort was bound to limit the extent to which engineering could be celebrated as contributing to some grand philosophical project or the unfolding of History. Notwithstanding its focus on the philosophical study of engineering and its proper ethics. The article concludes with Aristotle's reminder that without politics to give it force, ethics remains but words, a sobering but necessary reflection for all authors, and engineers, who wish to make the world a better place.
6.Conclusion
 From my study carried out so far, my assertion is that, there can be a two-way beneficial interaction between philosophy and engineering. Two qualifications can be made at the outset.First, I am sure there are possible collaborations other than the particular two-way interaction.Second,a proper evaluation of the proposed interaction(philosophy and engineering) would include an investigation into the history of engineering to see if one can find examples of this two-way interaction, both to illustrate the interaction, and as a kind of validation of the fruitfulness of the interaction. This article has not exhausted all relevant materials to give a final conclusion. But even if there have not yet been any interactions between philosophy and engineering of the form which I have in mind, I maintain that the possibility is worth consideration,particularly because such interactions may be necessary for some philosophical breakthroughs and engineering achievements. In addition, engineers should be accountable to society (in both local and global sense).Part of that accountability is the responsibility to explain how engineering carries out its function in a manner intelligible to the non-engineer. Finally, because of the challenges faced by engineers when confronted by philosophical discuss, I here proposed that philosophy of engineering be included into the curriculum of undergraduate engineering programs.
 7 Acknowledgment 
1. Prof. Dr. Marsigit, M.A [19], whose material, “Lesson Plan of the Philosophy of Education" in his web-blog(https://www.academia.edu/37471341/PhilosophyofEducation) of Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY), helped enormously to structure this article.
 2. Some of the material used in this article is taken from two chapters written by the author in a book published in January 2007, Philosophy in Engineering, Editors: Steen Christensen, Martin Meganck, Bernard Delahousse, academic authors. References
 [1] ENCYCLOP_DIA BRITANNICA, how published = https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism- philosophy. Accessed: 2018-12-30.
 [2] K. Barad. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press. Duke University Press, 2007.
 [3] Carl Mitcham. The importance of philosophy to engineering, 1994. [Online; accessed 26-Dec-2004].
 [4] S.H. Christensen, B. Delahousse, C. Didier, M. Meganck, and M. Murphy. The Engineering-Business Nexus: Symbiosis, Tension and Co-Evolution. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology Series. Springer, 2018.
 [5] S.H. Christensen, C. Didier, A. Jamison, M. Meganck, C. Mitcham, and B. Newberry. Engineering Identities, Epistemologies and Values: Engineering Education and Practice in Context. Number v. 2 in Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
[6] S.H. Christensen, C. Didier, A. Jamison, M. Meganck, C. Mitcham, and B. Newberry. International Perspectives on Engineering Education: Engineering Education and Practice in Context. Number v. 1 in Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
 [7] S.H. Christensen, C. Mitcham, B. Li, and Y. An. Engineering, Development and Philosophy: Amer- ican, Chinese and European Perspectives. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. Springer Netherlands, 2012.
 [8] Donna Haraway. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, 1998. [Online; accessed 26-Dec-2018,5.00pm].
 [9] P.T. Durbin. Critical Perspectives on Nonacademic Science and Engineering. Research in technology studies. Lehigh University Press, page 11,1991.
 [10] F. Ferr_e. Philosophy of Technology. Prentice-Hall foundation of philosophy series. University of Georgia Press, 1995.
 [11] S. Florman. The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. Souvenir Press, 2013.
 [12] Dr Mike Cli_ord. Glyn Spencer. Being a christian in engineering, November 2007.
 [13] V.F. Hendricks. The Convergence of Scientific Knowledge: A view from the limit. Trends in Logic. Springer Netherlands, page 277-305,2013.
 [14] U. J_rgensen and S. Brodersen. Engineering Professionalism: Engineering Practices in Work and Education. Professional Practice and Education. SensePublishers, 2016.
 [15] R. Keyes. The Quote Veri_er: Who Said What, Where, and When. St. Martin's Press, 2007.
 [16] R.D. Launius. Innovation and the Development of Flight. Texas A&M University Press, 1999.
 [17] R.E. Lee and I. Wallerstein. Overcoming the Two Cultures: Science vs. the Humanities in the Modern World-system. Taylor & Francis, 2015.
 [18] S. Loeve, X. Guchet, and B.B. Vincent. French Philosophy of Technology: Classical Readings and Contemporary Approaches. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. Springer International Publishing, 2018.
 [19] Prof. Dr. Marsigit. Lesson plan of the philosophy of education, Sep 25, 2018.
[20] C. Merchant. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scienti_c Revolution. G - Refer- ence,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. HarperCollins, 1990.
 [21] C. Mitcham. Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1994.
 [22] C. Mitcham, B. LI, B. Newberry, and B. ZHANG. Philosophy of Engineering, East and West. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Springer International Publishing, 2018.
 [23] D.F. Noble. AMERICA BY DESIGN. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2013.
 [24] J.K.B. Olsen, S.A. Pedersen, and V.F. Hendricks. A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Wiley, 2012.
 [25] Herbert Alexander. Simon. The Sciences of the Arti_cial. Karl Taylor Compton lectures. MIT Press, 1996.
 [26] D. Stark. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton University Press, 2011.
 [27] I. van de Poel and D.E. Goldberg. Philosophy and Engineering: An Emerging Agenda. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. Springer Netherlands, page 7,2010.
 [28] R. Williams. Retooling: A Historian Confronts Technological Change. The MIT Press. MIT Press, 2003.
[29] L. Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Dover Publications, page 11,2012.