{"title":"Accident Causation Models: The Good the Bad and the Ugly","authors":"Kristian González Barman","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2023.2205024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the evolution of Accident Causation Models (ACMs) from the perspective of philosophy of science. I use insights from philosophy of science to provide an epistemological analysis of the ways in which engineering scientists judge the value of different types of ACMs and to offer normative reflection on these judgements. I review three widespread ACMs and clarify their epistemic value: sequential models, epidemiological models, and systemic models. I first consider how they produce and ensure safety (‘usefulness’) relative to each other. This is evaluated in terms of the ability of models to afford a larger set of relevant counterfactual inferences. I take relevant inferences to be ones that provide safety (re)design information or suggest countermeasures (safety-design-interventions). I argue that systemic models are superior at providing said safety information. They achieve this, in part, by representing non-linear causal relationships. The second issue is whether we should retire linear and epidemiological models. I argue negatively. If the goal is to assign blame, linear models are better candidates. The reason is that they can provide semantic simplicity. Similarly, epidemiological models are better suited for the goal of audience communication because they can provide cognitive salience.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":"75 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2023.2205024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the evolution of Accident Causation Models (ACMs) from the perspective of philosophy of science. I use insights from philosophy of science to provide an epistemological analysis of the ways in which engineering scientists judge the value of different types of ACMs and to offer normative reflection on these judgements. I review three widespread ACMs and clarify their epistemic value: sequential models, epidemiological models, and systemic models. I first consider how they produce and ensure safety (‘usefulness’) relative to each other. This is evaluated in terms of the ability of models to afford a larger set of relevant counterfactual inferences. I take relevant inferences to be ones that provide safety (re)design information or suggest countermeasures (safety-design-interventions). I argue that systemic models are superior at providing said safety information. They achieve this, in part, by representing non-linear causal relationships. The second issue is whether we should retire linear and epidemiological models. I argue negatively. If the goal is to assign blame, linear models are better candidates. The reason is that they can provide semantic simplicity. Similarly, epidemiological models are better suited for the goal of audience communication because they can provide cognitive salience.
Engineering StudiesENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
12
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍:
Engineering Studies is an interdisciplinary, international journal devoted to the scholarly study of engineers and engineering. Its mission is threefold:
1. to advance critical analysis in historical, social, cultural, political, philosophical, rhetorical, and organizational studies of engineers and engineering;
2. to help build and serve diverse communities of researchers interested in engineering studies;
3. to link scholarly work in engineering studies with broader discussions and debates about engineering education, research, practice, policy, and representation.
The editors of Engineering Studies are interested in papers that consider the following questions:
• How does this paper enhance critical understanding of engineers or engineering?
• What are the relationships among the technical and nontechnical dimensions of engineering practices, and how do these relationships change over time and from place to place?