Author's reply to: David Blockley's discussion of the special issue

IF 1.7 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/10286608.2021.1980550
D. Carmichael
{"title":"Author's reply to: David Blockley's discussion of the special issue","authors":"D. Carmichael","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Professor Blockley makes a pertinent observation, namely that of the ‘large differences of approach ranging at the extremes from formal (Carmichael) to the informal (Elms)’ within the contributions to the Special Issue. For Civil Engineering Systems to develop as a discipline, it is my belief that some underlying formal structure to knowledge is necessary and this is the thinking behind the BOK Framework proposed in Carmichael (2020). Certainly, not everything can be formalised, individuals will add their informality in any situation, some individuals have an inherent dislike of structure, and many people while maybe clever are not structured thinkers and happily co-exist with shuffled ideas, but an agreed underlying structure will be necessary at some stage in the development of Civil Engineering Systems, as it is in all wellestablished disciplines in engineering. Why not start developing that structure now? Professor Blockley mentions reductionism and emergentism, though the intent of the comments is unclear. Reductionism, to my understanding, attempts an explanation of entire systems in terms of their individual, constituent parts and their interactions. The interactions mean that the whole is not simplistically the sum of the parts. Emergentism, to my understanding, relates to studying systems at their highest level where the properties of the whole are more than the sum of the parts. Systems thinking incorporates reductionism and emergentism as described in the above senses, and this is embodied in the BOK Framework put forward (Carmichael, 2020). Interestingly, the terms reductionism or emergentism appear to be rarely mentioned in any discussion on Civil Engineering Systems, possibly because engineers prefer to explain the relationship between a system and its subsystems in plain terms, unencumbered largely by terms with non-agreed meanings. The historical presence of the terms reductionism and emergentism means that some people lean naturally towards systems-type thinking without any formal education or knowledge in systems. Of course, the terms and practices of reductionism and emergentism can be interpreted in multiple ways.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":"18 1","pages":"250 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980550","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Professor Blockley makes a pertinent observation, namely that of the ‘large differences of approach ranging at the extremes from formal (Carmichael) to the informal (Elms)’ within the contributions to the Special Issue. For Civil Engineering Systems to develop as a discipline, it is my belief that some underlying formal structure to knowledge is necessary and this is the thinking behind the BOK Framework proposed in Carmichael (2020). Certainly, not everything can be formalised, individuals will add their informality in any situation, some individuals have an inherent dislike of structure, and many people while maybe clever are not structured thinkers and happily co-exist with shuffled ideas, but an agreed underlying structure will be necessary at some stage in the development of Civil Engineering Systems, as it is in all wellestablished disciplines in engineering. Why not start developing that structure now? Professor Blockley mentions reductionism and emergentism, though the intent of the comments is unclear. Reductionism, to my understanding, attempts an explanation of entire systems in terms of their individual, constituent parts and their interactions. The interactions mean that the whole is not simplistically the sum of the parts. Emergentism, to my understanding, relates to studying systems at their highest level where the properties of the whole are more than the sum of the parts. Systems thinking incorporates reductionism and emergentism as described in the above senses, and this is embodied in the BOK Framework put forward (Carmichael, 2020). Interestingly, the terms reductionism or emergentism appear to be rarely mentioned in any discussion on Civil Engineering Systems, possibly because engineers prefer to explain the relationship between a system and its subsystems in plain terms, unencumbered largely by terms with non-agreed meanings. The historical presence of the terms reductionism and emergentism means that some people lean naturally towards systems-type thinking without any formal education or knowledge in systems. Of course, the terms and practices of reductionism and emergentism can be interpreted in multiple ways.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作者回复:David Blockley对特刊的讨论
布洛克利教授做了一个中肯的观察,即在特刊的投稿中,“从正式(卡迈克尔)到非正式(埃尔姆斯)的极端方法的巨大差异”。对于土木工程系统作为一门学科的发展,我相信一些潜在的正式知识结构是必要的,这就是Carmichael(2020)提出的BOK框架背后的想法。当然,并不是所有的东西都可以形式化,个人会在任何情况下加入他们的非正式性,有些人天生不喜欢结构,许多人虽然聪明,但不是结构化的思想家,并且乐于与混乱的想法共存,但是在土木工程系统发展的某个阶段,商定的潜在结构是必要的,因为它是在所有成熟的工程学科中。为什么不现在就开始发展这种结构呢?布洛克利教授提到了还原论和紧急主义,尽管他的评论意图尚不清楚。在我看来,还原论试图从个体、组成部分及其相互作用的角度来解释整个系统。相互作用意味着整体不是简单的部分之和。根据我的理解,涌现主义是指在最高层次上研究系统,在这个层次上,整体的属性大于部分的总和。系统思维包含了上述意义上的还原论和紧急主义,这体现在提出的BOK框架中(Carmichael, 2020)。有趣的是,在任何关于土木工程系统的讨论中,还原论或紧急主义这两个术语似乎很少被提及,可能是因为工程师更喜欢用简单的术语来解释系统及其子系统之间的关系,而不受意义不一致的术语的影响。还原论和紧急主义这两个术语的历史存在意味着一些人在没有任何正式教育或系统知识的情况下自然地倾向于系统型思维。当然,还原论和涌现论的术语和实践可以有多种解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
10
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems is devoted to the advancement of systems thinking and systems techniques throughout systems engineering, environmental engineering decision-making, and engineering management. We do this by publishing the practical applications and developments of "hard" and "soft" systems techniques and thinking. Submissions that allow for better analysis of civil engineering and environmental systems might look at: -Civil Engineering optimization -Risk assessment in engineering -Civil engineering decision analysis -System identification in engineering -Civil engineering numerical simulation -Uncertainty modelling in engineering -Qualitative modelling of complex engineering systems
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of stochastic finite element analyses for the safety assessment of unreinforced masonry shear walls Investigating the influencing parameters with automated scour severity detection using Bayesian neural networks Celebrating 40 years of the CEES journal Carbon footprint assessment of maintenance and rehabilitation techniques for sewer systems Systems methods and real world practice – Paul Jowitt’s pilgrimage in his writings for this journal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1