3 ms·

Can you elaborate? This seems like a very perverse system. Why is criticism viewed to be so dangerous? As long as both the critic and the criticized are suppor

Can you elaborate? This seems like a very perverse system. Why is criticism viewed to be so dangerous? As long as both the critic and the criticized are supporting their arguments with reasons and engaged in dialogue, the outcome should be net good for everyone.

mcguire 8y ago
On one hand, speculations during an ongoing investigation do not do anything good. Ruining someone's career without actually having all of the facts is poor form. On the other, criticising a collegue for a mistake that is only obvious in retrospect is also poor sportsmanship.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  After you've dropped a bridge on dozens of occupied automobiles, your career is ruined, full stop. No one in TFA claimed that the mistakes were "only obvious in retrospect". All 4 experts independently identified strut 11 as being far too weak, after less than a weekend of study. The original engineer whose firm was paid millions of dollars should have performed the same analysis they did over the weekend, at least.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    1. Accidents happen. If the original engineering firm followed accepted practices then it doesn't matter how quickly someone else found the flaw after the flaw was made evident by the collapse. 2. "After you've dropped a bridge...": Until the investigation is complete, no one has any business assigning responsibility. (In fact, the investigation probably won't assign responsibility; that will be the job of the court system in the subsequent lawsuits.) http://to70.com/why-aviation-safety-experts-dont-talk-about-accidents/ http://to70.com/why-aviation-safety-experts-dont-talk-about-...
angersock 8y ago
> Why is criticism viewed to be so dangerous? Criticism, behind closed doors or strictly in the company of other engineers with the correct training and experience, is not dangerous. Criticism shared with non-engineers amounts to second-guessing and degrades the trust of the public in the profession as a whole, which has tangible negative outcomes for everyone. Imagine if every project you'd been on had another developer bending the ear of management saying "oh, that's the wrong editor...oh, that's not the right algorithm to use..."! It'd be awful. For mechanical and structural engineering, both much more difficult and unknowable than software, it is of the utmost importance not to foment doubt and uncertainty in people who are by definition unqualified to properly understand the criticisms and weight them.
- tankerslay 8y ago
  "Scandal" should be avoided because it "degrades the trust of the public in the profession." An age-old saw trotted out to justify the cover-up of diverse kinds of negligence and malfeasance in all manner of professions the world over. It works precisely until there is a scandal too big to cover-up.
  - angersock 8y ago
    There are always degrees of uncertainty in any physical engineering project. It doesn't help anybody to have the general public being told to second-guess the work. Why do you think otherwise?
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      All four experts in TFA independently identified the same problematic strut, "11", after a weekend of unpaid work. That doesn't sound like "uncertainty" to me.
- oldcynic 8y ago
  > Criticism shared with non-engineers amounts to second-guessing and degrades the trust of the public in the profession as a whole, which has tangible negative outcomes for everyone. Also makes it ever so easy to bury the negligence and mistakes. Leaving the public devoid of trust and potentially with some very tangible negative outcomes. For instance: "Yes your condition should have been identified, it's clear from the first X-rays in your history. No it's too late to do anything about it now, you just have to live with it. Put that in writing? I couldn't possibly do that." Repeat several times. Applicable to many of the professions in varying degree.

mcguire 8y ago

On one hand, speculations during an ongoing investigation do not do anything good. Ruining someone's career without actually having all of the facts is poor form. On the other, criticising a collegue for a mistake that is only obvious in retrospect is also poor sportsmanship.

jessaustin 8y ago
After you've dropped a bridge on dozens of occupied automobiles, your career is ruined, full stop. No one in TFA claimed that the mistakes were "only obvious in retrospect". All 4 experts independently identified strut 11 as being far too weak, after less than a weekend of study. The original engineer whose firm was paid millions of dollars should have performed the same analysis they did over the weekend, at least.
- mcguire 8y ago
  1. Accidents happen. If the original engineering firm followed accepted practices then it doesn't matter how quickly someone else found the flaw after the flaw was made evident by the collapse. 2. "After you've dropped a bridge...": Until the investigation is complete, no one has any business assigning responsibility. (In fact, the investigation probably won't assign responsibility; that will be the job of the court system in the subsequent lawsuits.) http://to70.com/why-aviation-safety-experts-dont-talk-about-accidents/ http://to70.com/why-aviation-safety-experts-dont-talk-about-...

angersock 8y ago

> Why is criticism viewed to be so dangerous? Criticism, behind closed doors or strictly in the company of other engineers with the correct training and experience, is not dangerous. Criticism shared with non-engineers amounts to second-guessing and degrades the trust of the public in the profession as a whole, which has tangible negative outcomes for everyone. Imagine if every project you'd been on had another developer bending the ear of management saying "oh, that's the wrong editor...oh, that's not the right algorithm to use..."! It'd be awful. For mechanical and structural engineering, both much more difficult and unknowable than software, it is of the utmost importance not to foment doubt and uncertainty in people who are by definition unqualified to properly understand the criticisms and weight them.

tankerslay 8y ago
"Scandal" should be avoided because it "degrades the trust of the public in the profession." An age-old saw trotted out to justify the cover-up of diverse kinds of negligence and malfeasance in all manner of professions the world over. It works precisely until there is a scandal too big to cover-up.
- angersock 8y ago
  There are always degrees of uncertainty in any physical engineering project. It doesn't help anybody to have the general public being told to second-guess the work. Why do you think otherwise?
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    All four experts in TFA independently identified the same problematic strut, "11", after a weekend of unpaid work. That doesn't sound like "uncertainty" to me.
oldcynic 8y ago
> Criticism shared with non-engineers amounts to second-guessing and degrades the trust of the public in the profession as a whole, which has tangible negative outcomes for everyone. Also makes it ever so easy to bury the negligence and mistakes. Leaving the public devoid of trust and potentially with some very tangible negative outcomes. For instance: "Yes your condition should have been identified, it's clear from the first X-rays in your history. No it's too late to do anything about it now, you just have to live with it. Put that in writing? I couldn't possibly do that." Repeat several times. Applicable to many of the professions in varying degree.