A perpetual sum.

A lot of times in science to reach something innovative you must first go through the process of engineering. Without which innovation is usually impossible. However engineer Henry Petroski has actually brought up an interesting point in his video. “Can you have rocket science before the rocket?” A lot of times the things often come before the science about them ever do.

This statement of his actually brings up a whole chicken and egg sort of argument. What actually comes first? And does it matter, if innovation is eventually reached in the end?

Our discussion last week in class was a roundabout word fight about what type of design thinking could actually be considered as innovative and categorized as using a design thinking mindset.

If we were to go back and look at Petroski’s statement, perhaps it won’t be so important as to categorize and prioritize oneself within each department of science, art, design, or engineering. But instead it’s more important to realize that each of these categories in fact help create one another and are just considered tiny stepping stones in a bigger pathway.

In Petroski’s example he used a rocket. A rocket which was first thought of on a quest of science to explore space, but engineering was used to create, which in turn created the sub category of rocket science. Just as in how science and engineering are able to create one another through the use of successful design thinking minds, perhaps if the angles of art and design were tossed the end product would not just be the ‘rocket science’ but much much more.

In our quest to understand design thinking and its usage we might have become too caught up in the tiny minutia and differing aspects of engineering vs. design. Instead perhaps what really happens is that each of these categories (science, art, design, engineering) create a rebounding block for one another that keeps the design thinking flowing continuously throughout the innovative process. They are all in fact part of a bigger perpetual whole, a sum of all parts.

This entry was posted in engineers on design thinking and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to A perpetual sum.

  1. lizksong says:

    As you mentioned, discussing and dissecting the intricate differences among the fields (science, art, design, engineering, etc.) can become mind-numbing, frustrating, and may feel like chasing one’s tail round and round. However, as Kai mentioned during our discussion, it’s important to try and define those terms to provide clarity, and further understanding to those terms.

    I know that the discussion got, at times, frustrating, because people would blur definitions and then hit the nail on the stone again and again. However, just the mere action of bringing up those topics made me think about those differences outside of class. Furthermore, reading those readings on this website helped formulate and clarify my ideas, I think. I guess I am in agreement, but am also promoting understanding the parts of the whole.

Leave a comment