Rational Goals in Engineering Design: The Venice Dams

Philosophy of Engineering and Technology

Volumn 9, Issue , 2013, Pages 83-99

  Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Design Solution; Engineering Design; Functional Requirement; Goal Achievement; Venice Lagoon

Indexed keywords

EID: 85101642649     PISSN: 18797202     EISSN: 18797210     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5243-6_6     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Baumslag, D. 1998. Choosing scientific goals: The need for a normative approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29(1): 81–96.
2. Bratman, M.E. 1999. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
3. Bucciarelli, L.L. 1994. Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
4. Campion, M.A., and R.G. Lord. 1982. A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30(2): 265–287.
5. Cíntora, A. 1999. Critical comments on Laudan’s theory of scientific aims. Sorites 10: 19–38.
6. Cross, N. 2000. Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design, 3rd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
7. de Vries, M.J. 2009. Translating customer requirements into technical specifications. In Handbook of the philosophy of science. Vol. 9: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijers, 489–512. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
8. Deheyn, D.D., and L.R. Shaffer. 2007. Saving Venice: Engineering and ecology in the Venice lagoon. Technology in Society 29: 205–213.
9. Dieter, G.E. 1991. Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Edvardsson Björnberg, K. 2008. Utopian goals: Four objections and a cautious defence. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 15(1): 139–154.
11. Edvardsson Björnberg, K. 2009. What relations can hold among goals, and why does it matter? Crítica Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía 41(121): 47–66.
12. Edvardsson, K., and S.O. Hansson. 2005. When is a goal rational? Social Choice and Welfare 24(2): 343–361.
13. Eprim, Y. 2005. Venice mobile barriers project: Barrier caissons construction details. In Flooding and environmental challenges for Venice and its Lagoon: State of knowledge, ed. C.A. Fletcher and T. Spencer, 257–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Ertas, A., and J.C. Jones. 1996. The engineering design process, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
15. Franssen, M. 2005. Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 16(1–2): 42–56.
16. Franssen, M., and L.L. Bucciarelli. 2004. On rationality in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design 126(6): 945–949.
17. Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G.-J., and I. van de Poel. 2009. Philosophy of technology. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/. Publisher is: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305–4115.
18. Hansson, S.O. 1998. Should we avoid moral dilemmas? The Journal of Value Inquiry 32(3): 407–416.
19. Huff, C. 2008. It is not all straw, but it can catch fire: In defense of impossible ideals in computing. Science and Engineering Ethics 14: 241–244.
20. Hughes, J. 2009. Practical reasoning and engineering. In Handbook of the philosophy of science. Vol. 9: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijers, 375–402. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21. Iranzo, V. 1995. Epistemic values in science. Sorites 1: 81–95.
22. Kroes, P. 2009. Foundational issues of engineering design. In Handbook of the philosophy of science. Vol. 9: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijers, 513–541. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. Kroes, P., M. Franssen, and L. Bucciarelli. 2009. Rationality in design. In Handbook of the philosophy of science. Vol. 9: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijers, 565–600. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24. Laudan, L. 1984. Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25. Levi, I. 1986. Hard choices: Decision making under unresolved conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Locke, E.A., and G.P. Latham. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
27. Locke, E.A., and G.P. Latham. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist 57(9): 705–717.
28. Maimon, O., and D. Braha. 1996. On the complexity of the design synthesis problem. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 26(1): 142–151.
29. McCann, H.J. 1991. Settled objectives and rational constraints. American Philosophical Quarterly 28: 25–36. (Reprinted in Mele, A.R. (ed.). 1997. The philosophy of action, 204–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)
30. Miller, K.W. 2008. Critiquing a critique. A comment on “A critique of positive responsibility in computing”. Science and Engineering Ethics 14(2): 245–249.
31. Nozick, R. 1993. The nature of rationality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. Pahl, G., and W. Breitz. 1996. Engineering design: A systematic approach, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.
33. Rosencrantz, H., K. Edvardsson, and S.O. Hansson. 2007. Vision zero – Is it irrational? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(6): 559–567.
34. Schmidtz, D. 1995. Rational choice and moral agency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35. Spencer, T., P.M. Guthrie, J. Da Mosto, and C.A. Fletcher. 2005. Introduction: Large-scale engineering solutions to storm surge flooding. In Flooding and environmental challenges for Venice and its Lagoon: State of knowledge, ed. C.A. Fletcher and T. Spencer, 241–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Stedry, A.C., and E. Kay. 1966. The effects of goal difficulty on performance: A field experiment. Behavioural Science 11(6): 459–470.
37. Stieb, J.A. 2008. A critique of positive responsibility in computing. Science and Engineering Ethics 14(2): 219–233.