The Thinkers Guide To Engineering Reasoning Based On Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (Thinkers Guide Library) by Richard Paul, Robert Niewoehner, Linda Elder

The Thinker’s Guide to
ENGINEERING REASONING
Based on Critical Thinking Concepts &

Tools
SECOND EDITION
RICHARD PAUL, ROBERT NIEWOEHNER and

LINDA ELDER
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London
Originally published by
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
P. O. Box 196
Tomales, California 94971
www.criticalthinking.org
Reissued in 2019 by Rowman & Littlefield

An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com
6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Paul and Linda Elder
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who
may quote passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Paul, Richard; Niewoehner, Robert; and Elder, Linda
The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning, Second Edition
Richard Paul
ISBN 978-0-944583-33-4 (pbk: alk. paper) | ISBN 978-1-5381-3379-8
(electronic)
1. Engineering 2. Engineering reasoning 3. Engineering education 4.
Engineering instruction 5. Critical thinking 6. Rob Niewoehner 7. Linda Elder
2013949913
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of

American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
and the Thinker’s Guide Library
Founded by Dr. Richard Paul, the Foundation for Critical Thinking is
the longest-running non-profit organization dedicated to critical
thinking. Through seminars and conferences, online courses and
resources, and a wide range of publications, the Foundation
promotes critical societies by cultivating essential intellectual abilities
and virtues in every field of study and professional area. Learn more
at www.criticalthinking.org and visit the Center for Critical Thinking
Community Online (criticalthinking-community.org).
The Thinker’s Guide Library introduces the Paul-Elder Framework
for Critical Thinking™ and contextualizes critical thinking across
subject areas and audience levels to foster fairminded critical
reasoning throughout the world.
1. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools,
Eighth Edition
2. The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking
3. The Thinker’s Guide to Ethical Reasoning
4. The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning
5. The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies
6. The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking
7. The Art of Asking Essential Questions, Fifth Edition
8. The Thinker’s Guide to the Human Mind
9. The Thinker’s Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to
Detect Media Bias and Propaganda in National and World
News, Fourth Edition
10. The Thinker’s Guide to Scientific Thinking
11. The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning
12. The Thinker’s Guide to Clinical Reasoning
13. The Aspiring Thinker’s Guide to Critical Thinking
14. The Student Guide to Historical Thinking
15. The Thinker’s Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a
Discipline, Second Edition
16. How to Read a Paragraph: The Art of Close Reading, Second
Edition
17. How to Write a Paragraph: The Art of Substantive Writing
18. The International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test,
Second Edition
19. The Miniature Guide to Practical Ways for Promoting Active
and Cooperative Learning, Third Edition
20. How to Improve Student Learning: 30 Practical Ideas
21. A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Educational Fads
22. The Thinker’s Guide to Intellectual Standards
23. A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking Competency
Standards
Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
The Foundation for Critical Thinking and the Thinker’s Guide
Library
Contents
Foreword
Introduction
A Framework for Engineering Reasoning
Intellectual Traits Essential to Engineering Reasoning
Universal Structures of Thought
A Checklist for Engineering Reasoning
The Spirit of Critical Thinking
Analyzing an Engineering Document
Analyzing a Design Using the Elements of Thought
Two Kinds of Engineering Questions
Analyzing Disciplines: Aerospace Engineering
Analyzing Disciplines: Electrical Engineering
Analyzing Disciplines: Mechanical Engineering
Analyzing Engineering Tools: Modeling and Simulation
Skilled Engineers Consentingly Adhere to Intellectual Standards
Universal Intellectual Standards Essential to Sound Engineering Reasoning
Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Design Features
Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Graphics
Evaluating an Engineer’s or Author’s Reasoning
Analyzing and Assessing Engineering Research
Purpose
Questions at Issue or Central Problem
Information
Inference and Interpretation
Assumptions
Concepts and Ideas
Point of View
Implications and Consequences
The Questioning Mind in Engineering: The Wright Brothers
The Cost of Thinking Gone Awry
Noteworthy Connections and Distinctions
Ethics and Engineering
Engineering Reasoning Objectives
Evaluating Student Work in Engineering
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking
Stages of Critical Thinking Development
The Thinker’s Guide Library
Foreword
I am delighted to recommend The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering
Reasoning for engineering instructors, students, and engineers alike.
This guide is a very useful addition to the arsenal of engineering
education tools. I believe it fills a gap that has been largely ignored in
engineering instruction. It covers an important area of competence
that we so often presume students will acquire, but traditionally (and
sadly) do not sufficiently address, if at all.
An isolated focus on technical skill delivery, or on one skill area,
has not worked in the past, currently fails and will not meet
tomorrow’s needs. It is important for the field of engineering to be
understood as systems of overlapping and interrelated ideas, rather
than isolated and different fields of knowledge. Moreover, it is
important to recognize and effectively deal with the multiple
environmental, social and ethical aspects that complicate
responsible engineering. Accordingly, it is time for engineering
educators to realize that effective engineering instruction cannot be
based in memorization or technical calculation alone. Rather, it is
essential that engineering students develop the generalizable critical
thinking skills and dispositions necessary for effectively and
professionally reasoning through the complex engineering issues
and questions they will face as engineers. The authors outline and
detail these skills and dispositions quite effectively in this guide.
I am further delighted to note the level of detailed sub distinctions
covered in the guide. I believe it is Dave Merrill who originally
claimed that expertise is defined by the number of detailed sub-
divisions clearly made and qualified. As such, the authors have
proven mastery!
Growing industry dissatisfaction with deficient engineering
education has led to the inception of the CDIO™ Initiative. This
international design addresses engineering education reform in its
broader context. Active student participation forms an integral part of
this solution. While not the exclusive aim or application of this guide,
its potential to compliment such institutional reforms by equipping the
student to step up to the challenges of independent reasoning, is
particularly beneficial.
The Thinkers Guide to Engineering Reasoning is not only a must-
read publication for engineering educators, but a vital guide and
career long companion for students and engineers alike.
Introduction
Why A Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning?
This thinker’s guide is designed for administrators, faculty, and
students. It contains the essence of engineering reasoning concepts
and tools. For faculty it provides a shared concept and vocabulary.
For students it is a thinking supplement to any textbook for any
engineering course. Faculty can use it to design engineering
instruction, assignments, and tests. Students can use it to improve
their perspective in any domain of their engineering studies.
General critical thinking skills apply to all engineering disciplines.
For example, engineering reasoners attempt to be clear as to the
purpose at hand and the question at issue. They question
information, conclusions, and points of view. They strive to be
accurate, precise, and relevant. They seek to think beneath the
surface, to be logical, and objective. They apply these skills to their
reading and writing as well as to their speaking and listening. They
apply them in professional and personal life.
When this guide is used as a supplement to the engineering
textbook in multiple courses, students begin to perceive applications
of engineering reasoning to many domains in their lives. In addition,
if their instructors provide examples of the application of engineering
thinking to life, students begin to see good thinking as a tool for
improving the quality of their lives.
If you are a student using this guide, get in the habit of carrying it
with you to every engineering class. Consult it frequently in analyzing
and synthesizing what you are learning. Aim for deep internalization
of the principles you find in it—until using them becomes second
nature.
While this guide has much in common with A Thinker’s Guide to
Scientific Thinking, and engineers have much in common with
scientists, engineers and scientists pursue different fundamental
purposes and are engaged in distinctively different modes of inquiry.
This should become apparent as you read this guide.
A Framework for Engineering
Reasoning
The analysis and evaluation of our thinking as engineers requires a
vocabulary of thinking and reasoning. The intellect requires a voice.
The model on the facing page is not unique to engineering; indeed,
its real power is its flexibility in adapting to any domain of life and
thought. Other Thinkers’ Guides in the Thinker’s Guides library1 apply
this framework to other disciplines. Engineers and scientists are quite
comfortable working within the context of conceptual models. We
employ thermodynamic models, electrical models, mathematical
models, computer models or even physical models fashioned from
wood or clay. In this guide we apply a model or framework for
thinking, an architecture whose purpose aids the analysis and
evaluation of thought, through which we might improve our thought. A
glance at other Thinkers’ Guides reveals that only shifts of emphasis
are required to apply this model to the sciences, the humanities, or
the arts.
The framework depicted on the following page provides an
overview of the entire guide, working from the base of the diagram
up. The goal or endpoint is the development of the mature
engineering thinker; therefore, that endpoint is described first with a
brief discussion of the intellectual virtues as might be expressed in
the practice of engineering.
Subsequently, the eight elements of thought are introduced.
These are tools for the analysis of thinking in ones’ own and others’
thought. These elements are then exemplified and applied to
analyzing texts, articles, reports, and entire engineering disciplines.
Next, the intellectual standards are introduced and exemplified.
These constitute the thinker’s evaluation tools. They are then woven
together with the elements in several formats to demonstrate
application of these evaluation standards to the analysis of our
thinking.
Finally, the guide includes several case studies of excellent
thinking and deficient thinking in engineering. It then concludes by
treating a number of distinctive topics that touch on the engineering
profession, such as aesthetics, ethics, and engineers’ relationships
with other professionals.
Using this Thinker’s Guide
As with the other guides in the Thinker’s Guide series, the content in
this guide is not to be read as straight prose; it is predominantly
composed of numerous examples, mostly probing questions, of a
substantive critical thinking model applied to the engineering context.
These examples may be used in class exercises, as reference
material, or as templates for out-of-class work, which students adapt
to their own courses, disciplines, and projects. A broader discussion
of the approach to critical thinking used in this guide can be found in
resources and articles on the website of the Foundation for Critical
Thinking, www.criticalthinking.org. For deeper understanding of the
basic theory of critical thinking, we especially recommend the book,
Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and
Personal Life, also available from the Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Engineers concerned with good thinking routinely

apply intellectual standards to the elements of
thought as they seek to develop the traits of a
mature engineering mind.
Footnote
1 See The Thinker’s Guides Library on pp. 52-54.
Intellectual Traits Essential to
Engineering Reasoning
No engineer can claim perfect objectivity; engineers’ work is
unavoidably influenced by many variables, including their education,
experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and level of intellectual arrogance.
Highly skilled engineers recognize the importance of cultivating
intellectual dispositions. These attributes are essential to excellence
of thought. They determine with what insight and integrity one thinks.
Intellectual humility is knowledge of ignorance, sensitivity to
what you know and what you do not know. It implies being aware of
your biases, prejudices, self-deceptive tendencies, and the
limitations of your viewpoint and experience. Licensure as a
Professional Engineer (PE) explicitly demands that engineers self-
consciously restrict their professional judgments to those domains in
which they are truly qualified.2 Questions that foster intellectual
humility in engineering thinking include:
What do I really know about the technological issue I am
facing?
To what extent do my prejudices, attitudes, or experiences bias
my judgment? Does my experience really qualify me to handle
this issue?
Am I quick to admit when I am dealing with a domain beyond
my expertise?
Am I open to considering novel approaches to this problem,
and willing to learn and study where warranted?
Intellectual courage is the disposition to question beliefs about
which you feel strongly. It includes questioning the beliefs of your
culture and any subculture to which you belong, and a willingness to
express your views even when they are unpopular (with
management, peers, subordinates, or customers). Questions that
foster intellectual courage include:
To what extent have I analyzed the beliefs I hold which may
impede my ability to think critically?
To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to yield my
positions when sufficient evidence is presented against them?
To what extent am I willing to stand my ground against the
majority (even though people ridicule me)?
Intellectual empathy is awareness of the need to actively
entertain views that differ from your own, especially those with which
you strongly disagree. It entails accurately reconstructing the
viewpoints and reasoning of your opponents and reasoning from
premises, assumptions, and ideas other than your own. Questions
that foster intellec tual empathy include:
To what extent do I listen and seek to understand others’
reasoning?
To what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints with which I
disagree?
To what extent do I accurately represent opponents’ views?
Would they agree?
To what extent do I recognize and appreciate insights in the
technical views of others and recognize prejudices in my own?
Intellectual integrity consists in holding yourself to the same
intellectual standards you expect others to honor (no double
standards). Questions that foster intellectual integrity in engineering
reasoning include:
To what extent do I expect of myself what I expect of others?
To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the
way I deal with technical issues?
To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-
deception and bad faith in my thinking when reasoning through
engineering issues?
Intellectual perseverance is the disposition to work your way
through intellectual complexities despite frustrations inherent in the
task. Questions that foster intellectual perseverance in engineering
reasoning include:
Am I willing to work my way through complexities in an
engineering issue or do I tend to give up when challenged?
Can I think of a difficult engineering problem in which I have
demonstrated patience and tenacity?
Do I have strategies for dealing with complex engineering
issues?
Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one’s own
higher interests and those of humankind at large are best served by
giving the freest play to reason. It means using standards of
reasonability as the fundamental criteria by which to judge whether
to accept or reject any proposition or position. Questions that foster
confidence in reason include:
Am I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to
a more reasonable position?
Do I aalways try to follow the evidence, without regard to my
own interests?
Do I encourage others to come to their own conclusions or do I
try to coerce agreement?
Intellectual autonomy is thinking for oneself while adhering to
standards of rationality. It means thinking through issues using one’s
own thinking rather than uncritically accepting the viewpoints,
opinions, and judgments of others. Questions that foster intellectual
autonomy in engineering thinking include:
To what extent do I uncritically accept what I am told (by my
supervisors, peers, government, and so on)?
To what extent do I uncritically accept traditional solutions to
problems?
Do I think through technical issues on my own or do I merely
accept the conclusions or judgments of others?
Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective,
am I willing to stand alone against irrational criticism?
Fairmindedness is being conscious of the need to treat all
viewpoints alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested
interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one’s friends,
company, community or nation. It implies adherence to intellectual
standards without reference to one’s own advantage or the
advantage of one’s group. Questions that foster fairmindedness
include:
To what extent do self-interests or biases tend to cloud my
judgment?
How do I tend to treat relevant viewpoints? Do I tend to favor
some over others? And if so, why?
To what extent do I appropriately weigh the strengths and
weaknesses of all significant relevant perspectives when
reasoning through an issue?
What personal interests do we have at stake here and how can
we ensure that we don’t favor our own interests over the
common good?
Intellectual Curiosity entails inquisitiveness as well as a strong
desire to deeply understand, to figure things out, to propose and
assess useful and plausible hypotheses and explanations; it implies
a strong propensity to learn and to search out solutions; it propels
the thinker toward further and deeper learning. Intellectually curious
thinkers welcome and pursue complex, intriguing, and vexing
questions. They reject superficial learning, or simplistic explanations.
Intellectual perseverance is typically fueled by curiosity. The
Columbia accident investigation board explicitly cited “intellectual
curiosity” several times as the vital missing trait from NASA,
contributing to the accident. Questions that foster intellectual
curiosity in engineering reasoning include:
To what extent do I search out new and powerful ways of
addressing issues in engineering?
To what extent do I go beyond surface explanations when
dealing with complex issues?
To what extent does my curiosity lead me to deeper insights
and more powerful conceptualizations?
To what extent do I accept traditional methods of reasoning
through engineering issues, rather than seeking potentially
more insightful methods?
Footnote
2National Society of Professional Engineers. 2003. Code of Ethics for Engineers.
www.nspe.org/ethics/codeofethics2003.pdf.
To Analyze Thinking We Must Learn to Identify
and Question its Elemental Structures
Note: When we understand the structures of thought, we ask
important questions implied by these structures.
A Checklist for Engineering
Reasoning
1. All engineering reasoning expresses a purpose.
• Have I distinguished my purpose from related purposes?
• Have I checked periodically to be sure I am still on target?
• Have I chosen realistic and achievable purposes?
2. All engineering reasoning seeks to figure something out,
to settle some question, solve some engineering problem.
• Have I stated the question at issue clearly and precisely?
• Have I expressed the question in several ways to clarify its
meaning and scope?
• Have I divided the question into sub-questions?
• Have I determined if the question has one right answer, or
requires reasoning from more than one hypothesis or point of
view?
3. All engineering reasoning requires assumptions.
• Have I clearly identified my assumptions and determined
whether they are justifiable?
• Have I considered how my assumptions are shaping my point
of view?
• Have I considered which of my assumptions might be
resonably questioned?
4. All engineering reasoning is done from some perspective
or point of view.
• Have I identified my specific point of view?
• Have I considered the point of view of other stakeholders?
• Have I striven to be fairminded in evaluating all relevant points
of view?
5. All engineering reasoning is based on data, information,
and evidence.
• Have I validated my data sources?
• Have I restricted my claims to those supported by the data?
• Have I searched for data that opposes my position as well as
alternative theories?
• Have I ensured that all data used is clear, accurate, and
relevant to the question at issue?
• Have I ensured that I have gathered sufficient data?
6. All engineering reasoning is expressed through, and
shaped by, concepts and theories.
• Have I identified key concepts and explained them clearly?
• Have I considered alternative concepts or alternative
definitions of concepts?
• Have I distorted ideas to fit my agenda?
7. All engineering reasoning entails inferences or
interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give
meaning to engineering data and work.
• Have I inferred only what the data supports?
• Have I checked inferences for their internal and external
consistency?
• Have I identified assumptions that led to my conclusions?
8. All engineering reasoning leads somewhere or has
implications and consequences.
• Have I traced the implications that follow from the data and
from my reasoning?
• Have I searched for negative as well as positive implications
(technical, social, environmental, financial, ethical)?
• Have I considered all significant implications?
The Spirit of Critical Thinking
Be aware: Highly skilled engineers have confidence in their ability
to figure out the logic of anything they choose. They continually
look for order, system and interrelationships.
Analyzing an Engineering Document
One important way to understand an engineering article, text
or technical report, is through analysis of the structure of an
author’s reasoning. Once you have done this, you can then
evaluate the author’s reasoning using intellectual standards
(see page 26). Here is a template to use:
1. The main purpose of this engineering article is

__________________.
(State, as accurately as possible, the author’s
purpose for writing the document. What was the
author trying to accomplish?)
2. The key question that the author is addressing
is _________________.
(Your goal is to figure out the key question that
was in the mind of the author when s/he wrote
the article. In other words, what key question is
addressed?)
3. The most important information in this
engineering article is __________________.
(Identify the key information the author used, or
presupposed, in the article to support his/her
main arguments. Here you are looking for facts,
experiences, and/or data the author is using to
support her/his conclusions, as well as its
sources.)
4. The main inferences /conclusions in this article
are ________________.
(Identify the most important conclusions that the
author reaches and presents in the article.)
5. The key concepts we need to understand in this
engineering article are __________________.
By these ideas the author means
__________________.
(To identify these concepts, ask yourself, What
are the most important ideas or theories you
would have to understand in order to understand
the author’s line of reasoning? Then briefly
elaborate what the author means by these
ideas.)
6. The main assumption (s) underlying the
author’s thinking is (are)
___________________.
(Ask yourself, What is the author taking for
granted [that might be questioned]? The
assumptions are generalizations that the author
does not think require defense in this context,
and they are usually unstated. This is where the
author’s thinking logically begins.)
7a. If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the
implications are ___________________.
(What consequences are likely to follow if people
accept the author’s line of reasoning? Here you
are to follow out the logical implications of the
author’s position. You should include implications
the author states, but also include those the
author does not state.)
7b. If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously,
the implications are ___________________.
(What consequences are likely to follow if people
ignore the author’s reasoning?)
8. he main point(s) of view presented in this
engineering article is (are)
___________________.
(The main question you are trying to answer
here is, What is the author looking at, and how is
s/he seeing it? For example, in this guide we are
looking at engineering reasoning and seeing it
“as requiring intellectual discipline and the
development of intellectual skills.”
If you understand these structures as they

interrelate in an engineering article, or technical
report, you should be able to empathically role-play
the thinking of the author. Remember, the eight
basic structures of thought highlighted here define
all reasoning, regardless of discipline or domain of
thought. By extension, they are also the essential
elements of engineering reasoning.
Analyzing a Design Using the
Elements of Thought
Engineering What is the purpose of this design?
purpose What are the market opportunities or mission
requirements?
Who defines market opportunities/mission
requirements?
Who is the customer?
Question at What system/product/process will best satisfy the

hand customer’s performance, cost, and schedule
requirements?
How does the customer define “value”?
Is a new design or new technology required?
Can an existing design be adapted?
How important is time-to-market?
Point of view A design and manufacturing point of view is typically

presumed. What other points of view deserve
consideration? Stockholders? Component
vendors/suppliers? Marketing/sales? Customers?
Maintenance/repair/parts? Regulators?
Community affairs? Politicians?
Environmentalists?
Assumptions What environmental or operating conditions are

assumed?
What programmatic, financial, market or technical
risks have been considered acceptable to date?
What market/economic/competitive environment is
assumed?
What safety/environmental assumptions are we
making? Are these assumptions acceptable?
What maturity level or maturation timeline is
assumed for emerging technologies?
What happens if we change or discard an
assumption?
What criteria have historically been assumed in
defining a “best” or “optimum” solution?
What assumptions have been made on the
availability of materials?
What manufacturing capability was assumed?
What workforce skills or attributes have been
assumed?
Engineering What is the source of supporting information

information (handbook, archival literature, experimentation,
corporate knowledge, building codes, government
regulation)?
What information do we lack? How can we get it?
Analysis? Simulation? Component testing?
Prototypes?
What experiments should be conducted?
Have we considered all relevant sources?
What legacy solutions, shortcomings, or problems
should be studied and evaluated?
Is the available information sufficient? Do we need
more data? What is the best way to collect it?
Have analytical or experimental results been
confirmed?
What insights and experiences can the shop floor
provide?
Concepts What concepts or theories are applicable to this

problem?
Are there competing models?
What emerging theory might provide insight?
What available technologies or theories are
appropriate?
What emerging technologies might soon be
applicable?
Inferences What is the set of viable candidate solutions?

Why were other candidate solutions rejected?
Is there another way to interpret the information?
Is the conclusion practicable and affordable?
Implications What are some important implications of the data

we have gathered?
What are the most important market implications of
the technology?
What are the most important implications of a key
technology not maturing on time?
How important is after-market sustainability?
Is there a path for future design evolution and
upgrade?
Are there disposal/end-of-service-life issues we
need to consider?
What are the most important implications of product
failure?
What design features if changed, profoundly affect
other design features?
What design features are insensitive to other
changes?
What potential benefits do by-products offer?
Should social reaction and change management
issues be addressed?
Two Kinds of Engineering Questions
In approaching a question, it is helpful to determine the kind of
system to which it belongs. Is it a question with one definitive
answer? Alternatively, does the question require us to consider
competing answers or even competing approaches to either solution
or conceptualization?
Questions of Procedure (established system)—Questions with an

established procedure or method for finding the answer. These
questions are settled by facts, by definition, or both. They are
prominent in mathematics as well as the physical and biological
sciences. Examples include:
- What materials do building codes require for this application?
- What is the yield strength of this material?
- How much electrical power does this equipment need?
- How hot does this fuel burn?
Questions of Judgment (conflicting systems)—Questions requiring
reasoned judgment, and with more than one arguable answer. These
are questions that make sense to debate, questions with better-or-
worse answers (well-supported and reasoned or poorly-supported
and/or poorly-reasoned answers). Here we are seeking the best
answer within a range of possibilities. We evaluate answers to such
questions using universal intellectual standards such as breadth,
depth, logicalness, and fairness. Some of the most important
engineering questions are conflicting-system questions (for example,
those questions with an ethical dimension). Examples include:
- How long will this part last?
- Should the development follow a spiral or waterfall management
model?
- Is the customer most concerned with cost or performance?
- How does the customer define “acceptable risk?”
- What model should be employed to reduce environment impact?
Analyzing Disciplines: Aerospace
Engineering
Purpose. Aerospace Engineering develops aerial and space-based
systems for defense, scientific, commercial, civil, and recreational
markets and missions. General mission needs within those markets
include transportation, earth and space sensing, and
communications. Typically, the products are vehicles such as
rockets, airplanes, missiles, satellites, and spacecraft, although the
product may also include the ground support equipment, or
imbedded hardware or software.
Key Question(s). What are the detailed design features of the
system that best satisfy the stated mission or market requirement?
How will we design, build, test, fabricate, and support aerospace
vehicles?
Point of View. The conceptual mission profile typically provides the
organizing framework for all design requirements and design
decisions. The attempt is to define value principally from the
perspective of the organizational leader who is sending the vehicle
on some mission flight (and paying for the flight). Other perspectives
may also be relevant: pilots, maintainers, manufacturing, and
logisticians, as well as technologists (structural engineers,
aerodynamicists, controls engineers, propulsion engineers, and
relevant others). Politicians will likely be influential in large
aerospace programs. Public opinion, concerned with ethical or
environmental issues, are often relevant, and if so, must be
considered.
Key Concepts. These include all those concepts associated with
classical physics, with some particular emphases: Newtonian and
orbital mechanics, conservation of mass, momentum and energy,
low and high speed aerodynamics, material properties and
lightweight structures, propulsion technologies.
Key Assumptions. Assumptions are in part shared by all scientists
and engineers. One assumption is that the universe is controlled by
pervasive laws that can be expressed in mathematical terms and
formulas. Additionally, aerospace engineers assume that an
aerospace solution will invariably entail the integration of multiple
technological disciplines and the resolution of competing design
tensions, including aerodynamics, astrodynamics, stability and
control, propulsion, structures, and avionics. Furthermore, the
aerospace system will be a system of systems, which must also fit
and interface with a larger system (e.g., air cargo airplanes must fit
and communicate with the air traffic control structures, missiles must
fit with existing launch rails; satellites must fit on independently
developed launch vehicles).
The Data or Information. Aerospace engineers employ
experimental and computational data, legacy designs, regulatory
requirements, market studies or mission needs statements.
Inferences, Generalizations, or Hypotheses. The conclusion of
most aerospace engineering activity is a product ready for delivery to
a customer.
Implications. Aerospace engineering products and services have
wide-ranging implications, linked with global, national, local
economics, ethics, defense, security, environmental effects such as
noise and pollution, and infrastructure such as airports, any of which
may impact the quality of life in communities and regions.
Analyzing Disciplines: Electrical
Engineering
Purpose. Electrical engineering develops electrical and electronic
systems for public, commercial, and consumer markets. It is
tremendously broad, spanning many domains including recreational
electronics, residential lighting, space communications, and electrical
utilities.
Key Questions. What are the detailed design features of the system
that best satisfy the stated mission or market requirements? How will
we conceive, design, implement, and operate electrical and
electronic products and systems?
Point of View. The point of view is commonly that of the design and
manufacturing team. Other relevant points of view include the
customer, stockholders, marketing, maintainers, or operators.
Key Concepts. These concepts include electromagnetism
(Maxwell’s equations), electrochemical properties of materials,
discrete and analog mathematics, resistance, current, charge,
voltage, fields and waves, and so on.
formulas, and that those principles can be used to model electrical
systems. Electrical engineers assume that some important market
needs can be best met through electrical and electronic products.
Additionally, electrical engineers frequently assume that their work
must be integrated with other engineering disciplines (such as
mechanical, chemical, and so forth) in the design and
implementation of a product.
Data or Information. Electrical engineers employ experimental and
computational data, legacy designs, regulatory requirements, market
studies or mission needs statements.
most electrical engineering activity is a product ready for delivery to
a customer.
Implications. Electrical engineering products and services have
wide-ranging implications that span global, national, and local
economics, public infrastructure, health care, and communications,
with potential for positive and negative quality of life impacts on
communities and regions.
Analyzing Disciplines: Mechanical
Engineering
Purpose. Mechanical engineering develops mechanical systems
and materials for public, commercial, and consumer markets. It is
tremendously broad, spanning transportation, mechanisms,
architecture, energy systems, materials, and more.
Key Questions. What are the detailed design features of the
mechanical system that best satisfy the stated mission or market
requirement? How will we conceive, design, implement, and operate
mechanical components, products, and systems?
Point of View. Commonly, the point of view is that of the design and
manufacturing team. Other relevant points of view include the
customer, stockholders, marketing, maintainers, or operators.
Key Concepts. These concepts include materials science, stress,
strain, loads, friction, dynamics, statics, thermodynamics, fluid
mechanics, energy, work, CAD/CAM, machines, and so on.
formulas, and that those principles can be used to model mechanical
systems. Mechanical engineers assume that market needs can be
met with mechanisms and materials. Additionally, mechanical
engineers frequently must integrate their work with other engineering
disciplines (such as automotive, aerospace, electrical, computer,
chemical, and so forth) in the design and implementation of a
product.
Data or Information. Mechanical engineers require experimental
and computational data, legacy designs, regulatory requirements,
market studies or mission need statements.
most mechanical engineering activity is a product ready for delivery
to a customer, or integration into a larger system.
Implications. Mechanical engineering products and services have
wide-ranging implications that span global, national, and local
economics, public infrastructure, transportation, health care and
communications with potential for positive and negative quality of life
impacts on communities and regions.
Braine-le-Château (Belgium), the old community watermill on the Hain river.

Picture by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT
Analyzing Engineering Tools:
Modeling and Simulation
Purpose. Modeling and simulation can either be a direct engineering
product or a development tool used to design other complex
systems. It provides a representation of the physical world for
purposes such as operator training, development trade studies,
component development, prototype testing, and test and evaluation
where full-scale live testing is impractical, dangerous or cost-
prohibitive.
Key Questions. How can the features of the real world be practically
simulated to provide accurate insight into physical interactions and
behaviors in order to design physical systems for specific purposes?
What level of detail is required for accurate portrayal of the systems
behavior?
Point of View. Simulation and modeling takes the point of view that
the physical world submits to mathematical and computational
modeling to such an extent that the behaviors observed in simulation
reliably imitate or predict a system’s performance in the real world.
Key Concepts. Concepts span all domains of engineering, but also
notably include concepts such as numerical methods, equations of
motion, man-the-loop and hardware-in-the-loop testing, batch
simulation, virtual reality, display latency, systems identification and
computational throughput.
Key Assumptions. Simulation depends upon simplifying
assumptions; real world detail remains beyond our reach. Simple
simulations entail lengthy lists of assumptions. Improving simulation
fidelity entails adding details to physical models that are assumed
negligible in more simple models. Enhancing fidelity to the real
physical world means removing assumptions, and consequently
building complexity.
When using modeling and simulation, engineers assume that they
can design models that accurately represent the physical world to
a sufficient level of detail.
Simulation and modeling typically assumes that a relationship
exists between cost and complexity, value and fidelity.
Engineers assume that there are situations in which modeling and
simulation provides vital insight (note that simulation may be
employed throughout the product life, from conception to
operation), while simultaneously recognizing that unmodeled
phenomena may indeed be significant (limiting the simulations
value).
The Data or Information. The information upon which simulation
and modeling depends includes math models for the interaction of
simulated systems, plus specific attributes of physical systems
provided by analysis, physical testing, legacy designs, or systems
identification.
Inferences. Simulation conclusions include design decisions as well
as training and educational practices.
Implications. Simulation can reduce the risk or expense of
engineering development and testing, or provide insight into a
system’s response to conditions which cannot practically or safely be
tested in realistic conditions (e.g., failure states or emergency
conditions). However, if a simulation product or process is flawed,
negative implications might exist for the use of the actual product
when used in the real world.
Skilled Engineers Consentingly
Adhere to Intellectual Standards
Universal intellectual standards must be applied to thinking
whenever one is evaluating the quality of reasoning as one reasons
through problems, issues, and questions. These standards are not
unique to engineering, but are universal to all domains of thinking. To
think as a highly skilled engineer entails having command of these
standards and regularly applying them to thought. While there are a
number of universal standards, we focus here on some of the most
significant.
Clarity: Understandable; the meaning can be grasped
Clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot
determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell
anything about it because we do not yet know what it is saying.
Questions targeting clarity include the following.
Could you elaborate further on that point?
Could you express that point in another way?
Could you give me an illustration or example?
Are the market/mission requirements clearly stated?
Have terms and symbols been clearly defined?
Which requirements have priority and which can be relaxed if
required?
Have the assumptions been clearly stated?
Is specialized terminology either defined, or being used in
keeping with educated usage?
drawings/graphs/photos and supporting annotations clearly
portray important relationships?3
How do the affected stakeholders define “value”?
Accuracy: Free from errors or distortions; true
A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in “Most creatures
with a spine are over 300 pounds in weight.”
Questions targeting accuracy include the following.
Is that really true?
How could we check that?
How could we find out if that is true?
What is your confidence in that data?
Has the test equipment been calibrated? How or when?
How have simulation models been validated?
Have assumptions been challenged for legitimacy?
What if the environment is other than we had expected (e.g.,
hotter, colder, dusty, humid)?
Are there hidden or unstated assumptions that should be
challenged?
Precision: Exact to the necessary level of detail
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in
“The solution in the beaker is hot.” (We don’t know how hot it is.)
Engineering questions targeting precision include the following.
Could you give me more details?
Could you be more specific?
What are acceptable tolerances for diverse pieces of information?
What are the error bars or confidence bounds on experimental,
handbook or analytical data?
At what threshold do details or additional features no longer add
value?
Concision: Brief in form while comprehensive in scope, implies the
elimination of unnecessary details to clarify thought
Concision does not connote eliminating words for brevity’s sake
(the sound bite), but rather an economy of thoughts whereby the
thinking is deep and significant, and clarity is actually enhanced
by the limited use of words. The question – or questions – at
issue, and the context within which the question is situated,
determine the amount of detail needed to clarify or guide thought
in a given situation. In other words the question, and its context,
drive the level of detail (precision/concision) needed. In the hours
building to the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger, engineers
understood the peril faced by launching at extremely low
temperatures. Yet, they buried their management in insignificant
details such that their message was missed; their signal was lost
in self-generated noise. “Clear and concise” appear routinely in
business writing guides as almost inseparable expectations of
business leaders. In his Principia, Isaac Newton remarked, “More
is vain when less will serve.”
Questions targeting concision include the following:
What can I remove that will boost the clarity of my point?
Do I need to eliminate any distracting details?
Should I move some of the relevant data to an appendix where it
is available but less distracting (because less important)?
Can a graph more concisely present this tabulated data, and
boost the clarity of the data being presented and the variables
being considered?
Relevance: Relating to the matter at hand
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant
to the question at issue. A technical report might mention the time
of day and phase of the moon at which the test was conducted.
This would be relevant if the system under test were a night vision
device. It would be irrelevant if it were a microwave oven.
Questions targeting relevance include the following.
How is that connected to the question?
How does that bear on the issue?
Have all relevant factors been weighed (e.g., environmental, or
marketplace)?
Are there unnecessary details obscuring the dominant factors?
Has irrelevant data been included?
Have important interrelationships been identified and studied?
Have features and capabilities (and hence costs) been included
which the customer neither needs nor wants?
Depth: Containing complexities and multiple interrelationships
A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but
superficial. For example, the statement, “Radioactive waste from
nuclear reactors threatens the environment,” is clear, accurate,
and relevant. Nevertheless, more details and further reasoning
need to be added to transform the initial statement into the
beginnings of a deep analysis.
Questions targeting depth include the following.
How does your analysis address the complexities in the question?
How are you taking into account the problems in the question?
Is that dealing with the most significant factors?
Does this design model have adequate complexity and detail,
given its counterpart in reality?
Breadth: Encompassing multiple viewpoints
A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and
deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either of two
conflicting theories, both consistent with available evidence).
Questions targeting multiple viewpoints include the following.
Do we need to consider another point of view?
Is there another way to look at this question?
What would this look like from the point of view of a conflicting
theory, hypothesis, or conceptual scheme?
Have the full range of options been explored?
Have interactions with other systems been fully considered?
Logic: The parts make sense together, no contradictions
When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some
order. The thinking is “logical” when the conclusion follows from
the supporting data or
Questions/Statements targeting logic include the following.
Does this really make sense?
Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow?
But earlier you implied this and now you are saying that. I don’t
see how both can be true.
Are the design decisions supported by logical analysis?
Fairness: Justifiable, not self-serving or one-sided
Fairness is particularly at play where more than one viewpoint is
relevant to understanding and reasoning through an issue
(conflicting conceptual systems), or where there are conflicting
interests among stakeholders. Fairness gives all relevant
perspectives a voice, while recognizing that not all perspectives
may be equally valuable or important.
Questions targeting fairness include the following.
Have other points of view been considered (stock holders,
manufacturing, sales, customers, maintenance, public citizens,
community interests, and so on)?
Are vested interests inappropriately influencing the design?
Are divergent views within the design team given fair
consideration?
Have the environmental/safety impacts been appropriately
weighed?
Have we fully considered the public interest?
Have we thought through the ethical implications in this decision?
Significance: Important, of consequence
Our thought can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, yet be
trivial, or fail to focus on significant issues or problems.
Engineering frequently entails problems with multiple relevant
independent variables, and yet one or two out of a half dozen may
outstrip the others in importance or significance. Students can
grasp at anything that comes to mind that’s relevant, and yet miss
the significant. This is also common in poorly run meetings, in
which minor matters consume inordinate time, and vital issues get
short shrift or are ignored entirely. Attentiveness to the significant
results in recognizing the most important information, issues and
implications in engineering reasoning.
Questions targeting significance include the following:
Have we identified the most important questions at the heart of
the issue?
What are the most influential factors?
What are the important variables that need to be considered?
What are the most significant implications that must be reasoned
through as we design this project?
Footnote
3 See pp. 27-28 for further questions that target the assessment of graphics through
intellectual standards. Students and faculty interested in clarity of graphical communication
are urged to read these three books by Edward Tufte: Visual Explanations, Envisioning
Information, and The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Published by Graphics
Press, Cheshire, Connecticut.
Universal Intellectual Standards
Essential to Sound Engineering
Reasoning
Could you elaborate further?
Clarity Could you give me an example?
Could you illustrate what you mean?
How could we check on that?
Accuracy How could we find out if that is true?
How could we verify or test that?
Could you be more specific?
Precision Could you give me more details?
Could you be more exact?
How does that relate to the problem?
Relevance How does that bear on the question?
How does that help us with the issue?
What factors make this a difficult
Depth problem?
What are some of the complexities of
this question?
What are some of the difficulties we
need to deal with?
Do we need to look at this from
Breadth another perspective?
Do we need to consider another point
of view?
Do we need to look at this in other
ways?
Does all this make sense together?
Are we taking a reasonable approach
Logic to the problem?
Does what you say follow from the
evidence?
Is this the most important problem to
Significance consider?
Is this the central idea to focus on?
Which of these facts are most
important?
Am I considering the views of others
Fairness in good faith?
Am I accurately representing the
viewpoints of others?
Is there an ethical component to this
issue that we are avoiding for reasons
of vested interest?
Using Intellectual Standards to
Assess Design Features
Clarity Have the requirements been clearly defined
(cost/schedule/performance/interoperability)?
Are test standards clearly defined?
What are the success criteria?
Accuracy Are the modeling assumptions appropriate to their

application?
How have analytical or experimental results been
confirmed?
Precision What degree of detail is required in the design or

simulation models?
What is the confidence range for the supporting data?
What variability can be expected in a material or
manufacturing process?
Depth Have the complexities of the problem been adequately

addressed?
Does the design provide appropriate interface with
other current or projected systems with which it must
interoperate?
Has growth capability been considered/addressed?
Will additional staff training or education be required?
Does the design take advantage of the design space?
Has software/hardware obsolescence been considered
over the system lifecycle?
Have end-of-life issues been identified?
Breadth Have alternative approaches been considered?

Are there alternative or emergent technologies which
offer cost or performance gains?
Relevance Does the design address the requirements?
Is there unnecessary over-design?
Are there unnecessary features?
Significance Are we dealing with the most significant design

issues?
What factors significantly drive or constrain the
design?
Fairness Have customer/supplier interests been properly

weighed?
Have public or community interests been considered?
Using Intellectual Standards to
Assess Graphics
Technical documents and presentations commonly rely upon
photographs, illustrations, and graphs to communicate content.
Graphics are prominent because: (1) graphics can be very
information dense; (2) graphics can reveal comparisons and trends
that would be obscure in tabular data or text; and (3) graphics can
reveal interconnections and relationships that are difficult to capture
within the linear flow of text. Graphics can do these things, but don’t
necessarily do these things. Graphical evidence can also trivialize,
mislead, obscure, or confuse.
Professor Edward Tufte (Yale) emphasizes the following
paragraph as the most important message in any of his books on
graphical communications.
Visual representations of evidence should be governed by
principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. For
information displays, design reasoning must correspond to
scientific reasoning. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one
with clear and precise thinking.4
Thus, intellectual standards apply to graphical communication as
well as they do to other forms of information!
Clarity
Will color enhance this graphic’s clarity? (Frequently, “Yes”)
Must I plan for black and white reproduction? (Also frequently,
“Yes”)
Have symbols been defined? Could annotation replace symbols?
Are units of measure clearly labeled?
Are consistent units and axes warranted?
Must the graphic stand by itself? Alternatively, can it rely on
nearby text?
Could multiple graphs be overlaid to improve comparisons?
Is data running together? Should these graphs be separate?
Precision
Will this graphic be presented on paper, or must I account for low-
resolution media, which lose detail (e.g., web or computer
projection)?
Have I chosen appropriate axes? Should one axis be logarithmic?
Would confidence bands or error bars improve credibility?
Accuracy
Is the choice of perspective or axes misleading?
Are observed trends realistically portrayed or illegitimately
amplified or attenuated by visual gimmick or distorted axes?
Relevance
Automated software tools, clip art, and logos are notorious for
adding visual fluff that dilutes content by raising the visual
background noise (lowering signal-to-noise ratio). Relevant graphics
serve the content by fostering understanding and retention.
Does every dot of ink serve the content?
Are grid lines really necessary? If so, are they as faint as
possible?
Does this graphic help the consumer better understand the
content?
Are all relevant factors displayed?
Significance
Does the graphic highlight significant concepts and relationships?
Does a graphic artificially amplify insignificant relationships?
Would another format better portray significant features?
Breadth
Are all relevant visual perspectives represented?
Complexity/Depth
Does my graphic suggest unrealistic simplicity?
Is this graphic unnecessarily complicated?
Does this graphic appropriately depict the complexities in the
issue?
Would a broader time scale provide a better context?
Has truncated time history data artificially amplified random
variation over a short time scale?
Efficiency
Efficiency did not appear in our prior list of intellectual standards.
It appears here because efficient use of paper or screen frequently
requires the careful integration of graphical elements and data in
ways that boost clarity and breadth, and enhance the revelation of
complex interactions (e.g., causal relationships or contrasts).
Graphical efficiency complements other intellectual standards. Tufte
notes:
Graphical excellence consists of complex ideas communicated
with clarity, precision and efficiency. Graphical excellence is that
which gives the viewer the greatest number of ideas in the
5
shortest time with the least amount of ink.
Could multiple graphs be overlaid to fall within one page or
screen?
Can I get all the similar graphs onto a single page to improve the
visibility of trends and to encourage direct comparison?
Are the relevant visual perspectives accurately represented?
Are the relevant visual perspectives properly weighted?
Footnotes
4 Tufte E. 1997. Visual Explanations. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press, 53.
5Tufte E. 1997. Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire,
Connecticut, 51.
Evaluating an Engineer’s or Author’s
Reasoning
Evaluating reasoning entails applying intellectual standards to the
elements of reasoning.
Relevant
Intellectual
Elements of Reasoning Standards
Purpose
Is the report’s (design’s) purpose clearly stated or Clarity
implied? Relevance
Has information irrelevant to the purpose been
included?
Questions
Is the specific question at issue focused? Precision
Are the explicit questions relevant to the stated Relevance
purpose? Depth
Does the question lay out the complexities in the issue? Clarity
Are the unanswered questions clearly identified? Breadth
Does the question guide us to consider all relevant
viewpoints?
Data or Information
What data is presented? Clarity
What was measured? Clarity
How was it measured and processed? Accuracy
What were the limits of the instrumentation’s precision? Precision
Did the available precision capture the required detail? Precision
What were the sources of data? Accuracy/depth
Archival/Experimental/Analytical/Modeling/Simulation? Accuracy
Is the data accurate? How was accuracy established? Accuracy
Is there data missing? Is there adequate data? Accuracy
Is the data of sufficient quality? Accuracy
What controls were applied to isolate causal factors? Accuracy/depth
Is the entire data set presented? What criteria were
used to select the presented data sample from the
complete data set?
Key Concepts
Are key concepts identified? Clarity
Are appropriate theories applied? Relevance
Are the applicable theories suitably explained or Depth
referenced? Depth
Have alternative concepts been considered? Justifiability
Are concepts used justifiably?
Point of View
Is the author’s point of view evident? Clarity
Are there competing theories that could explain the Breadth
data? Breadth
Have alternative relevant viewpoints been fully Fairness
considered? Fairness
Have relevant viewpoints been ignored or distorted due Fairness
to selfish or vested interests?
Have alternative ways of looking at the situation been
avoided in order to maintain a particular view?
Have objections been addressed?
Assumptions
What is being assumed? Clarity
Are the assumptions articulated/acknowledged? Clarity
Are these assumptions legitimate or necessary? Justifiability
Do the assumptions take into account the problem’s Depth
complexity? Justifiability
Are there alternative assumptions that should be
considered?
Inferences
Are the conclusions clearly stated? Clarity
Does the data support the conclusion? Logic
Are the conclusions important? Significance
Are there alternative conclusions? Logic
Is speculation misrepresented as fact? Accuracy
Is complexity trivialized or acknowledged? Depth
Do the conclusion follow from the assumptions? Logic
Implications
Are recommendations clearly presented? Clarity
Is further testing required? Depth
Why are these findings significant? Significance
Do the conclusions have application beyond the Logic
question at hand? Logic
Have other plausible implications been considered? Logic
What implications follow if any assumptions prove
unfounded?
Analyzing & Assessing Engineering
Research
Use this template to assess the quality of any engineering
research project or paper.
1) All engineering research has a fundamental PURPOSE and
goal.
• Research purposes and goals should be clearly stated.
• Related purposes should be explicitly distinguished.
• All segments of the research should be relevant to the purpose.
• All research purposes should be realistic and significant.
2) All engineering research addresses a fundamental QUESTION,
problem or issue.
• The fundamental question at issue should be clearly and
precisely stated.
• Related questions should be articulated and distinguished.
• All segments of the research should be relevant to the central
question.
• All research questions should be realistic and significant.
• All research questions should define clearly stated intellectual
tasks that, being fulfilled, settle the questions.
3) All engineering research identifies data, INFORMATION, and
evidence relevant to its fundamental question and purpose.
• All information used should be clear, accurate, and relevant to
the fundamental question at issue.
• Information gathered must be sufficient to settle the question at
issue.
• Information contrary to the main conclusions of the research
should be explained.
4) All engineering research contains INFERENCES or
interpretations by which conclusions are drawn.
• All conclusions should be clear, accurate, and relevant to the key
question at issue.
• Conclusions drawn should not go beyond what the data imply.
• Conclusions should be consistent and reconcile discrepancies in
the data.
• Conclusions should explain how the key questions at issue have
been settled.
5) All engineering research is conducted from some POINT OF
VIEW or frame of reference.
• All points of view in the research should be identified.
• Objections from competing points of view should be identified
and fairly addressed.
6) All engineering research is based on ASSUMPTIONS.
• Clearly identify and assess major assumptions in the research.
• Explain how the assumptions shape the research point of view.
7) All engineering research is expressed through, and shaped by,
CONCEPTS and ideas.
• Assess for clarity the key concepts in the research.
• Assess the significance of the key concepts in the research.
8) All engineering research leads somewhere (i.e., have
IMPLICATIONS and consequences).
• Trace the implications and consequences that follow from the
research.
• Search for negative as well as positive implications.
• Consider all significant implications and consequences.
Purpose
(All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some
question, solve some problem.)
Primary Standards: (1) Clarity, (2) Significance, (3) Achievability (4)
Consistency, (5) Justifiability
Common Problems: (1) Unclear, (2) Trivial, (3) Unrealistic, (4)
Contradictory, (5) Unfair
Principle: To reason well, you must clearly understand your
purpose, and your purpose must be reasonable and fair.
Unskilled Critical
Skilled Thinkers...
Thinkers... Reflections
Take the time to state their Are often unclear Have I made the
purpose clearly. about their purpose of my
central purpose. reasoning clear?
What exactly am I
trying to achieve?
Have I stated the
purpose in several
ways to clarify it?
Distinguish one’s purpose from Oscillate between What different
related purposes different, purposes do I have
sometimes in mind?
contradictory How do I see them as
purposes. related?
Am I going off in
somewhat different
directions?
How can I reconcile
these contradictory
purposes?
Unskilled Critical
Skilled Thinkers...
Periodically remind themselves Lose track of their In writing this proposal,
of their purpose to determine fundamental do I seem to be
whether they are straying object or goal wandering from my
from it. purpose?
How do my third and
fourth paragraph
relate to my central
goal?
Adopt realistic purposes and Adopt unrealistic Am I trying to
goals. purposes and accomplish too
set unrealistic much in this
goals. project?
Choose significant purposes Adopt trivial What is the
and goals. purposes and significance of
goals as if they pursuing this
were significant. particular purpose?
Is there a more
significant purpose I
should be focused
on?
Choose goals and purposes that Inadvertently Does one part of my
are consistent with other negate their own proposal seem to
goals and purposes they purposes. undermine what I
have chosen. Do not monitor am trying to
their thinking for accomplish in
inconsistent another part?
goals.
Adjust their thinking regularly to Do not adjust their Does my argument
their purpose. thinking stick to the issue?
regularly to their Am I acting
purpose. consistently within
my purpose?
Unskilled Critical
Skilled Thinkers...
Choose purposes that are fair- Choose purposes Is my purpose self-
minded, considering the that are self- serving or
desires and rights of others serving at the concerned only with
equally with their own desires expense of my own desires?
and rights. others’ needs Does it take into
and desires. account the rights
and needs of other
people?
Questions at Issue or Central Problem
(All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some
question, solve some problem.)
Primary Standards: (1) Clarity and precision, (2) Significance, (3)
Answerability (4) Relevance
Common Problems: (1) Unclear and imprecise, (2) Insignificant, (3)
Not answerable, (4) Irrelevant
Principle: To settle a question, it must be answerable, and you must
be clear about it and understand what is needed to
adequately answer it.
Skilled Unskilled Critical

Thinkers... Thinkers... Reflections
Are clear about the Are often unclear about the Am I clear about the main
question they are question they are asking. question at issue?
trying to settle. Am I able to state it
precisely?
Can re-express a Express questions vaguely Am I able to reformulate
question in a and find questions difficult my question in several
variety of ways. to reformulate for clarity. ways to recognize the
complexity of it?
Can break a Are unable to break down the Have I broken down the
question into questions they are asking. main question into
sub-questions. sub-questions?
What are the sub-
questions embedded
in the main question?
Routinely Confuse questions of Am I confused about the
distinguish different types and, thus, type of question I am
questions of often respond asking?
different types. inappropriately to the For example: Am I
questions they ask. confusing a legal
question with an
ethical one?
Am I confusing a
question of preference
with a question
requiring judgment?
Distinguish Confuse trivial questions with Am I focusing on trivial
significant from significant ones. questions while other
trivial questions. significant questions
need to be
addressed?
Distinguish relevant Confuse irrelevant questions Are the questions I am
questions from with relevant ones. raising in this
irrelevant ones. discussion relevant to
the main question at
issue?
Are sensitive to the Often ask loaded questions. Is the way I am putting
assumptions built the questions loaded?
into the Am I taking for granted
questions they from the onset the
ask. correctness of my own
position?
Distinguish Try to answer questions they Am I in a position to
questions they are not in a position to answer this question?
can answer from answer. What information would I
questions they need to have before I
can’t. could answer the
question?
Information
(All reasoning is based on data, information, evidence, experience,
and research.)
Primary Standards: (1) Clear, ( 2) Relevant, (3) Fairly gathered and
reported, (4) Accurate, (5) Adequate, (6)
Consistently applied
Common Problems: (1) Unclear, (2) Irrelevant, (3) Biased, (4)
Inaccurate, (5) Insufficient, (6) Inconsistently
applied
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the information upon
which it is based.

Assert a claim only when Assert claims without Is my assertion
they have sufficient considering all relevant supported by
evidence to back it up. information. evidence?
Can articulate and Do not articulate the Do I have evidence
evaluate the information they are to support my
information behind using in their reasoning claim that I have
their claims. and so do not subject it not clearly
to rational scrutiny. articulated?
Have I evaluated for
accuracy and
relevance the
information I am
using?
Actively search for Gather information only Where is a good
information against when it supports their place to look for
(not just for) their point of view. evidence on the
position. opposite side?
Have I looked
there?
Have I honestly
considered
information that
does not support
my position?
Focus on relevant Do not carefully distinguish Are my data relevant
information and between relevant to the claim I am
disregard what is information and making?
irrelevant to the irrelevant information. Have I failed to
question at issue. consider relevant
information?
Draw conclusions only to Make inferences that go Does my claim go
the extent that they are beyond what the data beyond the
supported by the data supports. evidence I have
and sound reasoning. cited?
State their evidence Distort the data or state it Is my presentation of
clearly and fairly. inaccurately. the pertinent
information clear
and coherent?
Have I distorted
information to
support my
position?
Inference and Interpretation
(All reasoning contains inferences from which we draw conclusions
and give meaning to data and situations.)
Primary Standards: (1) Clarity, (2) Logicality, (3) Justifiability, (4)
Profundity, (5) Reasonability, (6) Consistency
Common Problems: (1) Unclear, (2) Illogical, (3) Unjustified, (4)
Superficial, (5) Unreasonable, (6)
Contradictory
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the inferences it
makes (or the conclusions to which it comes).
Skilled Unskilled
Critical Reflections
Thinkers... Thinkers...
Are clear about the Are often unclear Am I clear about the inferences
inferences they are about the I am making?
making. inferences they Have I clearly articulated my
Clearly articulate their are making. conclusions?
inferences. Do not clearly
articulate their
inferences.
Usually make Often make Do my conclusions logically

inferences that inferences that do follow from the evidence and
follow from the not follow from the reasons presented?
evidence or evidence or
reasons presented. reasons
presented.
Often make Often make Are my conclusions superficial,

inferences that are inferences that are given the problem?
deep rather than superficial.
superficial.
Skilled Unskilled
Often make Often make Are my conclusions
inferences or come inferences or unreasonable?
to conclusions that come to
are reasonable. conclusions that
are unreasonable.
Make inferences or Often make Do the conclusions I reach in

come to inferences or the first part of my analysis
conclusions that come to seem to contradict the
are consistent with conclusions that conclusions that I come to at
each other. are contradictory. the end?
Understand the Do not seek to figure Is my inference based on a

assumptions that out the faulty assumption?
lead to inferences. assumptions that How would my inference be
lead to inferences. changed if I were to base it
on a different, more
justifiable assumption?
Assumptions
(All reasoning is based on assumptions—beliefs we take for
granted.)
Primary Standards: (1) Clarity, (2) Justifiability, (3) Consistency
Common Problems: (1) Unclear, (2) Unjustified, (3) Contradictory
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the assumptions on
which it is based.

Are clear about the Are often unclear Are my assumptions clear to
assumptions they are about the me?
making. assumptions Do I clearly understand what
they make. my assumptions are based
on?
Make assumptions that are Often make Do I make assumptions
reasonable and unjustified or about the future based on
justifiable given the unreasonable just one experience from
situation and evidence. assumptions. the past?
Can I fully justify what I am
taking for granted?
Are my assumptions
justifiable given the
evidence I am using to
support them?
Make assumptions that are Make Do the assumptions I made
consistent with each assumptions in the first part of my
other. that are argument contradict the
contradictory. assumptions I am making
now?
Constantly seek to discern Ignore their What assumptions am I
and understand their assumptions. making in this situation?
assumptions. Are they justifiable?
Where did I get these
assumptions?
Concepts and Ideas
(All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and
ideas.)
Primary Standards: (1) Clarity, (2) Relevancy, (3) Depth, (4)
Accuracy
Common Problems: (1) Unclear, (2) Irrelevant, (3) Superficial, (4)
Inaccurate
Principle: Reasoning can be only as sound as the assumptions on
which it is based.
Skilled Unskilled
Recognize the key Are unaware of What is the main concept I am using
concepts and the key in my thinking?
ideas they and concepts and What are the main concepts others
others use. ideas they and are using?
others use.
Are able to explain Cannot Am I clear about the implications of
the basic accurately key concepts? For example: Does
implications of explain basic the word “argument” have negative
the key words implications of implications that the word
and phrases their key “rationale” does not?
they use. words and
phrases.
Distinguish special, Do not recognize Where did I get my definitions of this
nonstandard when their use central concept? Is it consistent
uses of words of a word or with convention?
from standard phrase or Have I put unwarranted conclusions
uses, and avoid symbol into the definition?
jargon in departs from Does any of my vocabulary have
inappropriate conventional special connotations that others
settings. or disciplinary may not recognize?
usage. Have I been careful to define any
specialized terms, abbreviations, or
mathematical symbols?
Have I avoided jargon where
possible?
Skilled Unskilled
Recognize Use concepts or Am I using the concept of “efficiency”
irrelevant theories in appropriately?
concepts and ways For example: Have I confused
ideas and use inappropriate “efficiency” and “effectiveness”?
concepts and to the subject Am I applying theories which do not
ideas in ways or issue. apply to this application?
relevant to their
functions.
Think deeply about Fail to think Am I thinking deeply enough about
the concepts deeply about this concept? For example: The
they use. the concepts concept of product safety or
they use. durability, as I describe it, does not
take into account inexpert
customers. Do I need to consider
the idea of product safety more
deeply?
Point of View
(All reasoning is done from some point of view.)
Primary Standards: (1) Flexibility, (2) Fairness, (3) Clarity, (4)
Breadth, (5) Relevance
Common Problems: (1) Restricted, (2) Biased, (3) Unclear, (4)
Narrow, (5) Irrelevant
Principle: To reason well, you must identify those points of view
relevant to the issue and enter these
viewpoints empathetically.

Keep in mind that Dismiss or disregard Have I articulated the
people have different alternative reasonable point of view from
points of view, viewpoints. which I am
especially on approaching this
controversial issues. issue?
Have I considered
opposing points of
view regarding this
issue?
Consistently articulate Cannot see issues from I may have
other points of view points of view that are characterized my own
and reason from significantly different point of view, but
within those points of from their own. have I considered the
view to adequately Cannot reason with most significant
understand other empathy from alien aspects of the
points of view. points of view. problem from the
point of view of
others?
Seek other viewpoints, Recognize other points of Am I expressing X’s
especially when the view when the issue is point of view in an
issue is one they not emotionally unfair manner?
believe in charged, but cannot do Am I having difficulty
passionately. so for issues about appreciating X’s
which they feel viewpoint because I
strongly. am emotional about
this issue?
Confine their Confuse multilogical with Is the question here
monological monological issues; monological or
reasoning to insists that there is multilogical?
problems that are only one frame of How can I tell?
clearly monological.* reference within which Am I reasoning as if only
a given multilogical one point of view is
question must be relevant to this issue
decided. when in reality other
viewpoints are
relevant?
Recognize when they Are unaware of their own Is this prejudiced or
are most likely to be prejudices. reasoned judgment?
prejudiced. If prejudiced, where
does it originate?
Approach problems and Reason from within Is my approach to this
issues with a richness inappropriately narrow question too narrow?
of vision and an or superficial points of Am I considering other
appropriately broad view. viewpoints so I can
point of view. adequately address
the problem?
* Monological problems are ones for which there are definite correct and incorrect answers
and definite procedures for getting those answers. In multilogical problems, there are
competing schools of thought to be considered.
Implications and Consequences
(All reasoning leads somewhere. It has implications and, when acted
upon, has consequences.)
Primary Standards: (1) Significance, (2) Logicality, (3) Clarity, (4)
Precision, (5) Completeness
Common Problems: (1) Unimportant, (2) Unrealistic, (3) Unclear,
(4) Imprecise, (5) Incomplete
Principle: To reason well through an issue, you might think through
the implications that follow from your reasoning. You
must think through the consequences likely to flow from
the decisions you make.
Skilled Unskilled
Trace out a Trace out few or Did I spell out all the significant
number of none of the consequences of the action I
significant implications and am advocating?
potential consequences of If I were to take this course of
implications and holding a position action, what other
consequences or making a consequences might follow that
of their decision. I have not considered?
reasoning. Have I considered all plausible
failures?
Clearly and Are unclear and Have I delineated clearly and
precisely imprecise in the precisely the consequences
articulate the possible likely to follow from my chosen
possible consequences actions?
implications and they articulate.
consequences.
Search for Trace out only the I may have done a good job of
potentially consequence they spelling out some positive
negative as well had in mind at the implications of the decision I am
as potentially beginning, either about to make, but what are
positive positive or some of the possible negative
consequences. negative, but implications or consequences.
usually not both.
Skilled Unskilled
Anticipate the Are surprised when If I make this decision, what are
likelihood of their decisions some possible unexpected
unexpected have unexpected implications?
negative and consequences. What are some of the variables out
positive of my control that might lead to
implications. negative consequences?
Considers the Assumes the What measures are appropriate to
reactions of all outcomes and inform the community or
parties. products will be marketplace?
welcomed by What opinion leaders should be
other parties. involved?
The Questioning Mind in Engineering:
The Wright Brothers6
Throughout history, there have been a plethora of engineers who
were not only clear thinkers but stunning visionaries as well. In the
preindustrial age, many who were important scientists were also
engineers (Da Vinci, Galileo, Franklin, Fulton). Indeed, the ancient
artifacts of many brilliant engineers grace the landscapes of China,
Egypt, and Rome’s Empire. For our brief purpose, two exemplars will
suffice to illustrate highly skilled engineering reasoning. Orville and
Wilbur Wright rank among history’s most influential personalities,
having profoundly contributed to our modern lifestyles.
We all recognize the photo of Orville’s first flight, the Flyer hanging
in air, the expectant Wilbur poised, watching. This 1903 snapshot
represents a six-year campaign from the 1899 spark of the Wright
brothers’ interest in aeronautics to their first practical airplane in 1905.
Throughout that campaign, the brothers proved themselves master

thinkers, propelled by good questions. The record of their letters and
papers shows resolute and unflinching purpose. They clearly
articulated the dominant questions to be resolved, and practiced what
we now call “Systems Engineering” by articulating the need to
integrate their solutions to the particular problems of propulsion,
structures, aerodynamics, and control. They actively corresponded
with others, mining the best of the common pool of existing
knowledge. Yet, where necessary, they questioned the validity of
others’ data and created experiments to correct identified errors and
gaps. They recognized the impact of their assumptions, carefully
accounting for the limitations of their small-scale testing in wind
tunnels or across the handles of a moving bicycle. They questioned
conventional concepts; they were first to describe propellers as a
twisted, rotating wing, supplanting the flawed conception of a
propeller as analogous to a machine screw.
The Wrights had broad foresight, realizing that they needed to be
both inventors and pilots. They devoted 1,000 glider flights to learning
to fly prior to the first powered flight. Their progress represented
numerous intermediate conclusions and inferences drawn from their
progressive learning—each year’s variant drawing heavily on the
lessons learned from the prior year’s flying and experiments. They
were cognizant of implications, giving particular attention to managing
the hazards associated with flight tests, ensuring that they would
survive the inevitable crashes.
They distinguished themselves from others pursuing the same
goal by the breadth and depth of the questions they posed and
pursued. They did not see their challenge as a narrow aerodynamic
or technical one, but broadly, as a complex challenge involving
multiple technologies. The comical footage we see of others’ halting
attempts at powered flight reveals ignorance of its complexities.
Competitors ignored stability, or drag, or weight, or embraced shallow
and erroneous concepts of flight. Others’ designs seem to cry, “Surely
if it flaps like a bird, it will fly like a bird.” In contrast, the Wrights’
papers indicate a methodical integrated series of questions and
answers posed from diverse points of view as inventors, scientists,
businessmen, and pilots. Herein lay their success.
Footnote
6 Sources: Jakab P. Visions of a Flying Machine; McFarland MW (ed.). The Papers of Wilbur
and Orville Wright; and Anderson J. The History of Aerodynamics. Photograph: public
domain.
The Cost of Thinking Gone Awry
On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated over
the southern U.S., killing its crew of seven. The Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) met over the months that followed to
identify the direct and indirect causes, and provide both NASA and
the U.S. Congress with concrete direction with respect to the future of
both the shuttle program and American manned space flight.7 The
direct technical causes of this tragedy have been widely publicized.
More significantly, the CAIB reserved its most scathing findings for an
institutional culture within NASA fraught with poor thinking practices
that appeared to have learned nothing from the 1986 loss of the
space shuttle Challenger.
Note the use of our critical thinking vocabulary in the following
causal factors identified by the CAIB report, and rife throughout
NASA and its contractors.
Failure to challenge assumptions or patterns
Unsupported/illogical inferences
Assumptions confused with inferences
Suppression/dismissal of dissenting views
Failure to evaluate data quality or recognize data deficits
Failure to weigh the full range of implications
Narrow points of view
Confused purposes
Failure to pose the appropriate questions
Application of irrelevant data and concepts
Vague, equivocal language
The CAIB report specifically charged NASA leadership with a
reformation of their culture to improve and encourage good thinking
across the agency and its supporting contractors. The promotion of
good thinking practices was to be designed into the organizational
structure.
Footnote
7 Gehman, HW, et. al. 2003. Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, vol. 1.
http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/volume1/default.html.
Noteworthy Connections and
Distinctions
People often view science and engineering as almost synonymous,
likely due to the criticality of science to most engineering work and
the content of an engineering education. We have already noted a
number of distinctions and similarities between the kinds of
questions posed by the scientist and engineer. The topics in this
section give rise to additional interesting questions at the junction of
the engineer’s role and that of others with whom engineers might
work.
Creativity in Engineering
Engineering is a creative enterprise. Even the simplest engineering
jobs require analysis and assessment, yet will also demand ingenuity
and creativity in applying concepts, tools, and materials to the
problem at hand. Problems with unique solutions are rare, requiring
judgment to discern the strengths and weaknesses of candidate
solutions. Design requirements are frequently in tension,
necessitating creativity and keen insight into the customer’s
application to appropriately balance those tensions. True technical
innovation permits the creation of systems or products with novel
capabilities.
• Do the technical requirements require a new approach or
technology?
• What is the market for, cost of, or schedule risk of innovation on
this project?
• What opportunity does innovation create in this project?
Engineering and Aesthetics
It’s not all about the numbers. Unattractive products usually don’t
sell. Consequently, the skilled engineer cannot ignore the aesthetic
implications of their finished work. Indeed, in many engineering
enterprises, engineering teams will either include or consult
professional designers to ensure a product’s aesthetic appeal.
History is replete with engineers who were keenly aware of the
importance of aesthetics, leaving us with bridges, buildings, steam
locomotives, ships, and so on, in which form and function
harmoniously and attractively served one another.
• To what extent should I be concerned with the design’s aesthetic
appeal? Does the marketing department agree? Does the
customer agree?
• Is professional design consultation appropriate to this project?
Engineering and Technicians
While both engineers and technicians are technologists, in the sense
that their work is technologically based, there are significant
differences in how the two words are commonly used. “Technician”
typically applies to those skilled trades involved with the
manufacture, maintenance, or repair of technical systems. An
engineering degree is seldom required of a technician (nor math
beyond algebra and trigonometry). However, considerable post-
secondary training may be required for technicians in many fields. In
many situations, it is common to find technicians and engineers
working together within teams. Technicians might commonly ask,
“How do I restore the equipment to its optimum operating condition?”
The in-service engineer working with him might instead ask, “How
can the equipment be redesigned to avoid this failure in the future or
facilitate future repair?”
Engineers and Craftsmen
Overlap exists between the role of the engineer and a craftsman.
“Craftsman” typically connotes technical skill blended with artistry,
and might well express technical work in innovative ways. The
craftsman might consider many of the factors about which engineers
are concerned. For example, a cabinetry maker might carefully
select the materials for a particular application on the basis of
strength and durability, selecting joints and fasteners based upon the
anticipated load. The engineer would typically approach a similar
task by way of numerical analysis, whereas a craftsman might
generally approach the task intuitively, based on experience with
both the materials and usage. Many engineers have little direct
fabrication experience, while craftsmanship typically connotes direct
fabrication of a product. Orville and Wilbur Wright provide an
interesting example. As inventors of the airplane, carefully
calculating the required elements of each part of the design, they
were “thinking” as engineers. As bicycle makers, primarily relying
upon intuition and past experience, they appear to have been
“thinking” as craftsmen.
Engineering and Public Policy
Public policy frequently influences the practice of engineering. This
can result from the regulation of some perceived public or consumer
hazard, or the export control of a defense-sensitive technology. In
these cases, policy may constrain or oppose good engineering
practice. In others, public policy may foster engineering activity or
innovation in the form of contracts, research grants, or tax credits.
The engineer working in the public domain must have intellectual
empathy, must be able to grasp the concerns and interests
expressed by agents of public entities (regulators, lawmakers,
contracting officers), who may not have technical education or
experience. It is commonplace for policy requirements or
specifications designed to reduce or eliminate hazards to instead
hinder or constrain developing technologies or the work of the
engineer. It is therefore frequently appropriate for the engineer to
probe with questions of relevance when technology has moved
faster than the public policy, or when public interest is not served by
overzealous policy (e.g., consider the often excessively large
number of rules and regulations in building).
Ethics and Engineering
The work of engineering has implications for helping or harming
living creatures, and for improving or diminishing the quality of life on
earth. Therefore, the highly skilled engineer is concerned with the
ethical implications of engineering discoveries and inventions, and
the potential of engineering for both good and ill.
The ethical responsibilities of engineers are similar to that of
scientists, because the implications of engineering are often similar
to implications of science. It is useful to consider the transformation
that Einstein underwent in his views regarding the ethical
responsibilities of scientist. “From regarding scientists as a group
almost aloof from the rest of the world, he began to consider them
first as having responsibilities and rights level with the rest of men,
and finally as a group whose exceptional position demanded the
exercise of exceptional responsibilities.” In 1948, after the United
States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein
wrote this message to the World Congress of Intellectuals.
We scientists, whose tragic destiny it has been to help make
the methods of annihilation ever more gruesome and more
effective, must consider it our solemn and transcendent duty to do
all in our power in preventing these weapons from being used for
the brutal purpose for which they were invented. What task could
possibly be more important to us? What social aim could be closer
to our hearts?8
It is critical that engineers keep the ethical implications of their
work near the fore-front of their decisions. This includes thinking
through ethical implications of normal operations, possible failure
modes, and even situations in which a product might be misused by
the customer (e.g., situations, conditions, or applications not
intended by the designer). The capacity for harm motivates
governmental regulation and licensure of engineers in many fields.
However, while many engineering responsibilities may be codified in
applicable law, ethical duty exists even where legal obligation does
not.9
Humanitarian Responsibility and Product Safety
Collapse of the Tacoma
All engineers bear an obvious ethical responsibility to avoid

compromising the health and welfare of those who purchase their
products, as well as those who might come into contact with their
product, whether it is a consumer product or a suspension bridge.
Moreover, while all engineers presumably make products with
beneficial purposes, some engineers have positive ethical
opportunities to dramatically contribute to the health, welfare, and
economic vitality of individuals and communities.
Fiduciary Responsibility
Engineers have fiduciary responsibilities to customers, company
leadership, and stockholders. However, neither customers nor
stockholders have detailed insight into the engineer’s daily activity or
design decisions. Consequently, it is the engineer’s duty to
safeguard the interests and points of view of these stakeholders, as
a matter of ethical responsibility.
Environmental Responsibility
Large-scale catastrophes such as Bhopal or Chernobyl draw the
principal attention as exemplars of the power of engineers for
destructive impacts on communities, regions, and nations. In these
cases, a single product failure broadly devastated lives, livelihoods,
and property. As substantial, however, are the recurring cumulative
effects of normally functioning products whose count may number in
the tens of thousands, but whose pollutant products, consumption of
resources, or disposal challenges impose detrimental environmental
and/or economic effects over time.
In short, where there are ethical implications of an engineer’s
work for the health and sustainability of the earth, the engineer has
inescapable ethical obligations.
Footnotes
8 Clark R.1984. Einstein: The Life and Times. New York: Avon Books, 723.
9National Society of Professional Engineers. 2003. Code of Ethics for Engineers.
www.nspe.org/ethics/codeofethics2003.pdf
Engineering Reasoning Objectives
The CDIO (Conceive–Design–Implement–Operate) consortium has
developed a comprehensive syllabus for an engineering education,
ratified by diverse international industry and academic leaders.10 The
syllabus articulates a diverse range of learning objectives, many of
which explicitly employ the language of critical thinking. This list is of
principle benefit to educators seeking to catalog program educational
outcomes.
Engineering Affective Dimensions
• Exercising independent thought and judgment (2.4.2)11
• Exercising reciprocity (2.4.2)
• Welcoming ingenuity and innovation (2.4.1, 2.4.3)
• Recognizing diverse stakeholder points of view (2.3.1, 4.1.6)
• Suspending judgment (2.4.2)
• Developing insight into egocentrism and sociocentrism (2.4.2)
Cognitive Dimensions: Engineering Macro-
Abilities
• Selecting critical questions to be answered (2.2.1)
• Clarifying technical issues and claims (2.2.1)
• Clarifying technological ideas (2.1, 2.2, 3.2)
• Developing criteria for technical evaluation (4.4.6)
• Evaluating scientific/engineering authorities (2.2.2)
• Raising and pursuing root questions (2.2.1)
• Evaluating technical arguments (2.4.4)
• Generating and assessing solutions to engineering problems
(2.1)
• Identifying and clarifying relevant points of view (4.2)
• Engaging in Socratic discussion and dialectical thinking on
engineering issues
• Avoiding oversimplification of issues
• Developing engineering perspective (4.x)
Cognitive Dimensions: Engineering Micro-Skills
• Evaluating data (2.1.1)
• Analyzing assumptions (2.1.1)
• Identifying and applying appropriate models (2.1.2)
• Explaining generalizations (2.1.3)
• Questioning incomplete or ambiguous information (2.1.4)
• Analyzing essential results of solutions and test data (2.1.5)
• Reconciling discrepancies in results (2.1.5)
• Making plausible engineering inferences (2.1)
• Supplying appropriate evidence for a design conclusion (4.4)
• Recognizing contradictions
• Recognizing technical, legal/regulatory, economic, environmental,
and safety implications and consequences (4.1.1)
• Distinguishing facts from engineering principles, values, and
ideas
Footnotes
10 See www.cdio.org for more details.
11 Codes refer to syllabus topics in the CDIO syllabus.
Evaluating Student Work in
Engineering
The Grade of F
F-level work fails to display an understanding of the basic nature of
engineering reasoning, and in any case does not display the
engineering skills and abilities, which are at the heart of this course.
The work at the end of the course is as vague, imprecise, and
unreasoned as it was in the beginning. There is little evidence that
the student is genuinely engaged in the task of taking charge of his
or her engineering reasoning. Many assignments appear to have
been done pro forma, the student simply going through the motions
without really putting any significant effort into thinking his or her way
through them. Consequently, the student is not analyzing
engineering problems clearly, not formulating information accurately,
not distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, not identifying
key questionable assumptions, not clarifying key concepts, not
reasoning carefully from clearly stated premises, or tracing
implications and consequences. The student’s work does not display
discernable engineering reasoning and problem-solving skills.
The Grade of D
D-level work shows only a minimal level understanding of what
engineering is, along with the development of some, but very little,
engineering skills or abilities. D-level work at the end of the course
shows occasional engineering reasoning, but frequent uncritical
thinking. Most assignments are poorly done. There is little evidence
that the student is “reasoning” through the assignment. Often the
student seems to be merely going through the motions of the
assignment, carrying out the form without getting into the spirit of it.
D-level work rarely shows any effort to take charge of ideas,
assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. In general, D-
level thinking lacks discipline and clarity. In D-level work, the student
rarely analyzes engineering problems clearly and precisely, almost
never formulates information accurately, rarely distinguishes the
relevant from the irrelevant, rarely recognizes key assumptions,
almost never describes key concepts effectively, frequently fails to
use engineering vocabulary in keeping with established professional
usage, and seldom reasons carefully from clearly stated premises, or
recognizes important implications and consequences. D-level work
frequently displays poor engineering reasoning and problem-solving
skills.
The Grade of C
C-level work illustrates inconsistent achievement in grasping what
engineering is, along with the development of modest engineering
skills or abilities. C-level work at the end of the course shows some
emerging engineering skills, but also pronounced weaknesses as
well. Though some assignments are reasonably well done, others
are poorly done; or at best are mediocre. There are more than
occasional lapses in reasoning. Though engineering terms and
distinctions are sometimes used effectively, sometimes they are
used quite ineffectively. Only on occasion does C-level work display
a mind taking charge of its own ideas, assumptions, inferences, and
intellectual processes. Only occasionally does C-level work display
intellectual discipline and clarity. The C-level student only
occasionally analyzes problems clearly and precisely, formulates
information accurately, distinguishes the relevant from the irrelevant,
recognizes key questionable assumptions, clarifies key concepts
effectively, uses vocabulary in keeping with established professional
usage, and reasons carefully from clearly stated premises, or
recognizes important engineering implications and consequences.
Sometimes the C-level student seems to be simply going through the
motions of the assignment, carrying out the form without getting into
the spirit of it. On the whole, C-level work shows only modest and
inconsistent engineering reasoning and problem-solving skills.
The Grade of B
B-level work represents demonstrable achievement in grasping what
engineering is, along with the clear demonstration of a range of
specific engineering skills or abilities. B-level work at the end of the
course is, on the whole, clear, precise, and well-reasoned, though
with occasional lapses into weak reasoning. Overall, engineering
terms and distinctions are used effectively. The work demonstrates a
mind beginning to take charge of its own ideas, assumptions,
inferences, and intellectual processes. The student often analyzes
engineering problems clearly and precisely, often formulates
information accurately, usually distinguishes the relevant from the
irrelevant, and often recognizes key questionable assumptions,
usually clarifies key concepts effectively. The student typically uses
engineering language in keeping with established professional
usage, and shows a general tendency to reason carefully from
clearly stated premises, as well as noticeable sensitivity to important
implications and consequences. B-level work displays good
engineering reasoning and problem-solving skills.
The Grade of A
A-level work demonstrates advanced achievement in grasping what
engineering is, along with the comprehensive development of a
range of specific engineering skills or abilities. The work at the end of
the course is, on the whole, clear, precise, and well-reasoned,
though with occasional lapses into weak reasoning. In A-level work,
engineering terms and distinctions are used effectively. The work
demonstrates a mind beginning to take charge of its own ideas,
assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. The A-level
student often analyzes engineering problems clearly and precisely,
often formulates information accurately, usually distinguishes the
relevant from the irrelevant, often recognizes key questionable
assumptions, and usually clarifies key concepts effectively. The
student typically uses engineering language in keeping with
established professional usage, frequently identifies relevant
competing points of view, and shows a general tendency to reason
carefully from clearly stated premises, as well as noticeable
sensitivity to important implications and consequences. A-level work
displays excellent engineering reasoning and problem-solving skills.
The A student’s work is consistently at a high level of intellectual
excellence.
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking
Egocentric thinking results from the unfortunate fact that humans
do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others. They do
not naturally appreciate the point of view of others nor the
limitations in their own point of view. They become explicitly aware
of their egocentric thinking only if trained to do so. They do not
naturally recognize their egocentric assumptions, the egocentric
way they use information, the egocentric way they interpret data,
the source of their egocentric concepts and ideas, the implications
of their egocentric thought. They do not naturally recognize their
self-serving perspective.
As humans they live with the unrealistic but confident sense
that they have fundamentally figured out the way things actually
are, and that they have done this objectively. They naturally believe
in their intuitive perceptions—however inaccurate. Instead of using
intellectual standards in thinking, they often use self-centered
psychological standards to determine what to believe and what to
reject. Here are the most commonly used psychological standards
in human thinking.
“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT.” Innate egocentrism: I

assume that what I believe is true even though I have never
questioned the basis for many of my beliefs.
“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT.” Innate

sociocentrism: I assume that the dominant beliefs within the
groups to which I belong are true even though I have never
questioned the basis for many of these beliefs.
“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT.” Innate wish

fulfillment: I believe in, for example, accounts of behavior that put
me (or the groups to which I belong) in a positive rather than a
negative light even though I have not seriously considered the
evidence for the more negative account. I believe what “feels
good,” what supports my other beliefs, what does not require me to
change my thinking in any significant way, what does not require
me to admit I have been wrong.
“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IT.”

Innate self-validation: I have a strong desire to maintain beliefs that
I have long held, even though I have not seriously considered the
extent to which those beliefs are justified, given the evidence.
“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE IT IS IN MY SELFISH INTEREST TO

BELIEVE IT” Innate selfishness: I hold fast to beliefs that justify
my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even
though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or
evidence.
Because humans are naturally prone to assess thinking in
keeping with the above criteria, it is not surprising that we, as a
species, have not developed a significant interest in establishing
and teaching legitimate intellectual standards. It is not surprising
that our thinking is often flawed. We are truly the “self-deceived
animal.”
Stages of Critical Thinking
Development12
Footnote
12Found in Critical Thinking: Tools for Take Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life,
second edition, by Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2014). Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education..
The Thinker’s Guide Library
Rowman & Littlefield is the proud distributor of the Thinker’s Guide
Library developed by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Please
visit www.rowman.com or call 1-800-462-640 for more information.
Bulk order discounts available.
For Everyone
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools,
Eighth Edition
Paperback 9781538134948
eBook 9781538134955
The Thinker’s Guide to Ethical Reasoning

Paperback 9780944583173
eBook 9781538133781
The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies

Paperback 9780944583272
eBook 9781538133774
The Art of Asking Essential Questions

Paperback 9780944583166
eBook 9781538133804
The Thinker’s Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to

Detect Media Bias and Propaganda in National and World News,
Fourth Edition
Paperback 9780944583203
eBook 9781538133897
The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning

Paperback 9780944583333
eBook 9781538133798
The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking

Paperback 9780944583197
eBook 9781538133750
The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning

Paperback 9780944583319
eBook 9781538133842
The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking

Paperback 9780944583265
eBook 9781538133958
Thinker’s Guide to the Human Mind

Paperback 9780944583586
eBook 9781538133880
The Thinker’s Guide to Scientific Thinking

Paperback 9780985754426
eBook 9781538133811
The Thinker’s Guide to Clinical Reasoning

Paperback 9780944583425
eBook 9781538133873
For Students
The Aspiring Thinker’s Guide to Critical Thinking
Paperback 9780944583418
eBook 9781538133767
The Thinker’s Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a

Discipline, Second Edition
Paperback 9781632340009
eBook 9781538133835
The International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test,

Second Edition Paperback 9780944583326
eBook 9781538133965
The Student Guide to Historical Thinking

Paperback 9780944583463
eBook 9781538133941
How to Read a Paragraph, second edition

Paperback 9780944583494
eBook 9781538133828
How to Write a Paragraph

Paperback 9780944583227
eBook 9781538133866
For Educators
The Miniature Guide to Practical Ways for Promoting Active and
Cooperative Learning, Third Edition
Paperback 9780944583135
eBook 9781538133903
A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Educational Fads

Paperback 9780944583340
eBook 9781538133910
A Guide for Educators to Critical Thinking Competency

Standards
Paperback 9780944583302
eBook 9781538133934
How to Improve Student Learning: 30 Practical Ideas

Paperback 9780944583555
eBook 9781538133859
The Thinker’s Guide to Intellectual Standards

Paperback 9780944583395
eBook 9781538133927

The Thinkers Guide To Engineering Reasoning Based On Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (Thinkers Guide Library) by Richard Paul, Robert Niewoehner, Linda Elder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Thinkers Guide To Engineering Reasoning Based On Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (Thinkers Guide Library) by Richard Paul, Robert Niewoehner, Linda Elder

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Thinkers Guide To Engineering Reasoning Based On Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (Thinkers Guide Library) by Richard Paul, Robert Niewoehner, Linda Elder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Thinker’s Guide to

Based on Critical Thinking Concepts &

RICHARD PAUL, ROBERT NIEWOEHNER and

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD

Reissued in 2019 by Rowman & Littlefield

6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2013 by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of

Engineers concerned with good thinking routinely

1. The main purpose of this engineering article is

If you understand these structures as they

Question at What system/product/process will best satisfy the

Point of view A design and manufacturing point of view is typically

Assumptions What environmental or operating conditions are

Engineering What is the source of supporting information

Concepts What concepts or theories are applicable to this

Inferences What is the set of viable candidate solutions?

Implications What are some important implications of the data

Questions of Procedure (established system)—Questions with an

Braine-le-Château (Belgium), the old community watermill on the Hain river.

Accuracy Are the modeling assumptions appropriate to their

Precision What degree of detail is required in the design or

Depth Have the complexities of the problem been adequately

Breadth Have alternative approaches been considered?

Significance Are we dealing with the most significant design

Fairness Have customer/supplier interests been properly

Skilled Unskilled Critical

Skilled Unskilled Critical

Usually make Often make Do my conclusions logically

Often make Often make Are my conclusions superficial,

Make inferences or Often make Do the conclusions I reach in

Understand the Do not seek to figure Is my inference based on a

Skilled Unskilled Critical

Skilled Unskilled Critical

Throughout that campaign, the brothers proved themselves master

Collapse of the Tacoma

All engineers bear an obvious ethical responsibility to avoid

“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT.” Innate egocentrism: I

“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT.” Innate

“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT.” Innate wish

“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IT.”

“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE IT IS IN MY SELFISH INTEREST TO

The Thinker’s Guide to Ethical Reasoning

The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies

The Art of Asking Essential Questions

The Thinker’s Guide for Conscientious Citizens on How to

The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning

The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking

The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning

The Nature and Functions of Critical & Creative Thinking

Thinker’s Guide to the Human Mind

The Thinker’s Guide to Scientific Thinking

The Thinker’s Guide to Clinical Reasoning

The Thinker’s Guide for Students on How to Study & Learn a

The International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test,

The Student Guide to Historical Thinking

How to Read a Paragraph, second edition