3 ms·

>Engineers are not philosophers Hold your horses, some of us engineers have philosophy degrees! In all seriousness, engineers are more than capable of consid

>Engineers are not philosophers Hold your horses, some of us engineers have philosophy degrees! In all seriousness, engineers are more than capable of considering the impact of their creations. But can you predict future uses for technology with accuracy? Of course not. I'm not sure how relevant it is for most work. People will always find ways to use technology to the detriment of humanity, but the overall effect of technology is beneficial. The internet is obviously for the benefit of humanity, yet there are plenty of people using it for evil.

dekhn 8y ago
If a person says "Engineers are not philosophers", the common interpretation is not "All engineers are not philosophers", it's "Nearly all engineers are not philosophers". The small set of engineers with philosophy degrees does not negate the parent's statement.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  Did you just pick a formal logic debate with a philosopher? I disagree with your interpretation of the language used. The comment was authoritative in tone generally, and this line said (in my estimation) that the argument was "if someone is an engineer, they are not a philosopher". Even worse, there's a suggestion that this philosophical work shouldn't burden those "least qualified to perform it". Leaving the philosophy to "better men" is how we justify evils committed by underlings and evokes thoughts of the Nuremberg trials. Every person should come to terms with the moral implications of their actions. In any case, one doesn't need a philosophy degree to do philosophy, and many of the great engineers and scientists of history had a great deal to say with regard to the moral implications of their work. Even today, engineers at many of the big tech companies are objecting to some work their companies are doing. Many others choose not to work for companies whose mission they disagree with.
  - dekhn 8y ago
    No formal logic debate here; I was explaining colloquial use.

dekhn 8y ago

If a person says "Engineers are not philosophers", the common interpretation is not "All engineers are not philosophers", it's "Nearly all engineers are not philosophers". The small set of engineers with philosophy degrees does not negate the parent's statement.

ashelmire 8y ago
Did you just pick a formal logic debate with a philosopher? I disagree with your interpretation of the language used. The comment was authoritative in tone generally, and this line said (in my estimation) that the argument was "if someone is an engineer, they are not a philosopher". Even worse, there's a suggestion that this philosophical work shouldn't burden those "least qualified to perform it". Leaving the philosophy to "better men" is how we justify evils committed by underlings and evokes thoughts of the Nuremberg trials. Every person should come to terms with the moral implications of their actions. In any case, one doesn't need a philosophy degree to do philosophy, and many of the great engineers and scientists of history had a great deal to say with regard to the moral implications of their work. Even today, engineers at many of the big tech companies are objecting to some work their companies are doing. Many others choose not to work for companies whose mission they disagree with.
- dekhn 8y ago
  No formal logic debate here; I was explaining colloquial use.