A response to the claim that daily technical decisions are philosophical acts.
In response to my recent essay on the provisional nature of truth, an engineer commented:
“The real test isn’t our grand vision but our daily engineering choices right now.
Every model deployment, every training dataset, and every access control we ship today is already answering these questions at scale.”
It’s a thoughtful and important observation—one that captures a growing belief in the tech world that large-scale implementation is itself a form of philosophical proof. Yet this view, however well-intentioned, confuses operational impact with epistemic authority. What follows is my response: an argument that while engineering practice indeed shapes our lived experience of truth, it does so within assumptions it did not create—and whose validity only philosophical reflection can test.
My Response:
Thank you for your comment. As you may have noticed, my argument is that what we call “truth” is process-dependent, provisional, and domain-limited. Engineering work is one of the arenas where that process unfolds—but it is not the deployments themselves that advance understanding; it is the reflection on their failures that does.
Your claim elevates technical pragmatism to philosophical authority. It is akin to saying that because pilots fly planes daily, they are “answering questions about aerodynamics at scale.” They are not—they are applying aerodynamic principles that physicists have already derived.
The relationship is not:
“Engineering choices answer philosophical questions.”
Rather, it is:
“Engineering choices operate within inherited philosophical assumptions, and their failures reveal where those assumptions break down.”
This distinction matters. Engineering choices certainly have epistemic consequences—they instantiate particular theories of knowledge (for example, truth = consensus in training data), create feedback loops that influence what counts as valid knowledge, and establish practical limits on when we trust automation. But instantiation is not resolution. Implementing a flawed theory at scale does not answer the question of truth—it only makes the flaws more costly to repair.
Why Your Claim Overreaches
1. Confusing Operational Decisions with Philosophical Foundations
You conflate implementation choices with epistemic framework design. Daily engineering decisions—model deployment, dataset curation, access controls—operate within pre-existing epistemological structures. They do not answer questions about truth; they presuppose answers.
When an engineer selects a training dataset, they are not deciding whether truth is correspondence, coherence, or pragmatic utility. They are already operating within institutional norms, regulatory constraints, and implicit ontological commitments that precede their work—and those inherited assumptions may themselves be deeply flawed. Nevertheless, the philosophical heavy lifting has already been done—or, more often, quietly assumed.
2. Scale Is Not Philosophical Significance
“Scale” amplifies consequences, not meaning. Deploying a model to millions of users does not elevate a technical choice to philosophical status; it merely magnifies its impact.
McDonald’s serves billions of meals each year, but the scale of its fry production does not transform each batch into an inquiry into nutrition, agriculture, or human flourishing. Likewise, shipping access controls at scale is engineering execution, not truth-theoretic discovery.
3. The Grandfather Paradox of Engineering Choices
Your position produces a paradox: if daily engineering choices already answer fundamental questions about truth and knowledge, then those questions must be trivial enough to be solved by routine workflow. But if they are trivial, the philosophical discussion of truth’s nature becomes irrelevant.
Conversely, if the questions are genuinely profound—as I believe they are—then engineering choices cannot be answering them. They are, at best, implementing provisional solutions under inherited assumptions, while the deeper epistemic questions remain unresolved.
4. Mistaking Consequences for Answers
Engineering choices yield consequences and boundary conditions, not answers. When a facial recognition system fails across demographic groups, it does not “answer” questions about truth; it exposes the limits of our implicit theory of visual similarity—or more simply, the incompleteness of our information set.
This reflects the essay’s broader theme: workable quasi-truth advances through iterative falsification, not deployment. Engineering produces the empirical friction that forces philosophical revision—but the revision itself requires reflection, not code.
5. The Hidden Assumptions
Every “daily engineering choice” rests on a foundation of unexamined premises:
That the training data represents something meaningful;
That model outputs correspond to desired outcomes;
That access controls reflect coherent notions of authorization and harm.
These are not answers to philosophical questions—they are working hypotheses borrowed from cultural, legal, and scientific contexts. Engineers do not re-derive epistemology each morning; they inherit it.
In short, engineering choices instantiate our current understanding of truth—they do not define it. They make our assumptions operational, visible, and sometimes disastrously wrong. But it is in the philosophical reflection on those failures, not in the shipping of code, that progress toward truth actually occurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment