Examining Rock Engineering Knowledge through a Philosophical Lens

Abstract

This paper presents a philosophical examination of classical rock engineering problems as the basis to move from traditional knowledge to radical (innovative) knowledge. While this paper may appear abstract to engineers and geoscientists more accustomed to case studies and practical design methods, the aim is to demonstrate how the analysis of what constitutes engineering knowledge (what rock engineers know and how they know it) should always precede the integration of new technologies into empirical disciplines such as rock engineering. We propose a new conceptual model of engineering knowledge that combines experience (practical knowledge) and a priori knowledge (knowledge that is not based on experience). Our arguments are not a critique of actual engineering systems, but rather a critique of the (subjective) reasons that are invoked when using those systems, or to defend conclusions achieved using those systems. Our analysis identifies that rock engineering knowledge is shaped by cognitive biases, which over the years have created a sort of dogmatic barrier to innovation. It therefore becomes vital to initiate a discussion on the subject of engineering knowledge that can explain the challenges we face in rock engineering design at a time when digitalisation includes the introduction of machine algorithms that are supposed to learn from conditions of limited information.

Choosing between prediction and explanation in geological engineering: lessons from psychology

“…A good example for this is the catastrophic event of the Vajont slope failure (1963); while this event has attracted attention of several researchers who conducted rigorous investigations, a solid understanding of the 3D geological structure and failure mechanism has yet to be obtained. Similar to the study of humans, the study of geological materials consists of many 'unknown unknowns' (Elmo, Mitelman, and Yang 2022). Given these limitations, it is clear that the computed FoS cannot be accurate.…”

“…The fact that many engineers still rely on a set of old empirical equations proposed by Jennings and Robertson (1970) to determine the FoS of a slope with intermittent planes of weakness (rock bridge problem) reveals serious concerns as to whether scientific knowledge is considered at all in engineering geology (Elmo, Mitelman, and Yang 2022). The removal of instances that do not agree with one's assumptions, or forcibly searching for causality when data does not conform to commonly accepted rock engineering systems, are situations too common in disciplines that relate to the study of rock materials (Elmo and Stead 2021).…”

“…Elmo and Stead (2021) have discussed how practitioners and researchers in the field of geological engineering are preoccupied with justifying the removal of instances that do not agree with their initial assumptions or finding explanations when data does not conform to commonly accepted empirical engineering systems, rather than accepting that those systems do not have universal validity. Elmo, Mitelman, and Yang (2022) have proposed the metaphor of the rock engineering cave, which uses Plato's famous allegory of the cave to describe the contrasting nature of belief and engineering knowledge. The shadows on the walls of the cave symbolize the conversion of subjective evaluations into quantifications, that have come to be accepted as objective measurements.…”

“…When Galileo rejected a theory that was based on empirical observations (Geocentric model) in favour of another theory (Heliocentric model) that was better at explaining his observations (‘and yet it moves’ with reference to the motions of Jupiter's moons) he was punished for it. The same happens today in the field of engineering geology and rock engineering, when ideas that do not conform to the accepted orthodoxy are either heavily criticized or simply confined to engineering purgatory, as in the case of the paper by Pells et al (2017), who dared to suggest the Rock Quality Designation (RQD, Deere and Deere 1989) system ‘should rest in peace’ or papers presenting an examination of rock engineering knowledge (Elmo, Mitelman, and Yang 2022).…”

The Allegory of the Rock Engineering Cave

“…Bulleit et al [1] stated that reflective and philosophical engineers are better engineers. Applications of philosophy principles to rock engineering originates from the natural disposition of the human mind to question concepts that cannot be explained by empirical knowledge alone [2]. More importantly, the same authors stated that philosophy offers the opportunity to contextualize the teaching of rock engineering design outside of the domain of technical matters, and therefore accounting for the societal perception of engineering design (e.g., design of an underground nuclear waste repository).…”