| Other than the reference to SpaceX this post left the "engine" out of engineering more than I think is a viable amount of creative license. Engineering, or science for that matter, doesn't include all the values that individually or collectively motivate human beings to do anything. An engine can be the core component of what an airplane or rocket is, and science can help us optimize fuel type or efficiency, or make a more stable flight, but science and engineering will not lead us to decide whether to use that airplane for leisure or war. Perhaps in a perfectly technocratic society it is arguable that engineering and science are the ultimate guiding values and principles, but that is not the society or societies we live in. As far as software, it seems to me its engine is the microprocessor, but much if not most software is not working in tandem with some engine on the other end, exceptions being cars, planes, 3d printers etc. Rather, software is very malleable and although end users want things to work well, they also are accustomed to a steady if not daily flow of updates, which the author of this blog post has some expertise with (I would consider the development if continuous delivery an engineering endeavor). All that to say is I think the author should look more deeply elsewhere than science and engineering as to the why and what to build, or ironically the epistemology, ontology, methodology and axiology will sort of just be pulled out of the air ad hoc, perhaps the least scientific way of operating. |