Nice of you, Bill. It's a pleasure communicating with you and many of our colleagues – that let us learn things and sustain the spirit of contributing.
Yours: being polite and refraining from identifying what you perceive my veiled desire to be? Again you're so polite yourself in seeing my reply-post that way. I had no clue about your veiled desire – nothing of that sort crossed my mind. Apologies, if I have hurt your feeling. I was just trying to make a point in agreeing with the Spengler insight.
Spengler insight reverberates with many of our experiences – that curiosity lets one think – that in turn gives birth to questions. Questions and queries lead to the direction of forming hypotheses – as one looks for validation of them through experiments, measurements etc – sometimes discussing with friends and colleagues. All these help one to crystallize the efforts into theories and models. That's why I said yours are resourceful questions.
Agreeing and disagreeing are healthy part of the process. This reminds me of a talk show I had the opportunity to see online recently – between Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. Not on engineering subjects, but the matters are nevertheless important and interesting. The conversation between the two was polite and respectful – each complimenting the other; but then they agree to disagree with each other's rhetoric. No one is perfect after all.
On yours: and graduate classes focus on non-routine engineering. In the latter case, we tried to emphasize ambiguity and the need for creative solutions. So glad to hear. Many teaching styles and methods abound: most boring I have seen where teachers go on and on writing equations after equations without ever looking at the students – without ever feeling the necessity of explaining what are behind those equations, their limitations and applicability, etc – or throwing out such questions to students.
At Delft lectures in 1981-82 – I have seen Prof. Mike Abbott lecturing like a philosopher of a subject as complex as Numerical Modeling, walking from front to back of the classroom. We felt lost in first few lectures – but realized he wanted us to know what are behind equations and numerical methods – how to grasp their essence better. So was the teaching method of Prof. Bijker in coastal engineering. Also seen, then Rector of the Delft Institute Prof Mosterman's interesting lectures on History and what is Engineering all about. Again talking like a philosopher, facing students he used to keep his eyes closed walking from one side to the other of the dais (surprisingly he never stumbled and fell!) - his secretary writing on the board the key points. Well trained, she knew exactly what comes after what. When I thought about their teaching methods later on – I realized they wanted students to think independently, not juxtaposed by constraints of different sorts.
Although I am saying all these because of my experience – all senior teachers everywhere, especially those with some non-academic work experiences – teach in similar ways. Things just mature with the processes of long experience.
Class room teacher-student connection is very important; even in silence students convey something to the teacher. In my lectures, I have the habit of trying to get an impression of students' attention – sometimes pausing and making eye contact, to let them know that I want their attention, to let them know the rationale behind equations and methods – to let them develop questions and more questions in their mind.
In my 2017 Reference Material paper: Seabed Roughness of Coastal Waters – I have tried to demonstrate how one can understand equations by looking what are behind – such as the formidable Navier-Stokes equation. Using a technique known as Scale Analysis – the method brings to light the significance of different active and reactive force terms – of Common Sense Hydraulics and Force Fields Regime.
Despite did in the past, I like a portion of the 1955 Grinter Report so much that I feel tempted to quote it: . . . there is a great deal of similarity, both in conceptual understanding and in analytical methods, among the generalizations of heat flow, mechanics of fluids, electromagnetic fields, and vibration theory. When a student understands these generalizations, he has gained a concept of systematic orderliness in many fields of science and engineering; he is therefore able to approach the solution of problems in widely diverse fields, using the same analytical methods. This unification of methods of analysis can be accomplished to a considerable degree without reaching beyond undergraduate mathematical levels . . . There it is – what are needed to transcend the barriers of categorization and compartmentalization – to the freedom of understanding of things from different perspectives. The beauty of it – is that when one manages to do as such – things begin to converge.
Referring to my earlier post's resources are rather easy to find and access I like to finish this lengthy discussion with something relevant – a link to the 2026 prepublication copy NAP # 29291 The Status of Informal Science and Engineering Education.
--------------------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD
Website Links and Profile
Original Message:
Sent: 02-24-2026 01:03 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Can engineering practice benefit from innovations more quickly?
Thanks, Dilip. As always, you offer thoughtful responses.
In the first part, are you being polite and refraining from identifying what you perceive my veiled desire to be? Please don't be afraid of hurting my feelings.
For the second part, in my too-brief teaching career, we made a specific difference between our undergraduate classes focus on routine engineering and graduate classes focus on non-routine engineering. In the latter case, we tried to emphasize ambiguity and the need for creative solutions. One method I employed was asking students to critique journal papers. At first they were tentative, thinking that published papers must be authoritative. They progressed to recognizing limitations, even errors.
Bill Mc
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
Original Message:
Sent: 02-19-2026 07:38 PM
From: Dilip Barua
Subject: Can engineering practice benefit from innovations more quickly?
Bill – a thoughtful topic. Before going into your resourceful questions – I would like to quote a little bit of philosophy. The early 20th century German historian and philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936) – in his book (1918, 1922), wrote in the introductory paragraph . . . It was never seen that many questioners implies many answers, that any philosophical question is really a veiled desire to get an explicit affirmation of what is implicit in the question itself, that the great questions of any period are fluid beyond all conception, and that therefore it is only by obtaining a group of historically limited solutions and measuring it by utterly impersonal criteria that the final secrets can be reached . . .
If we accept this philosophical insight – then it entails that you have some answers in mind – and that there are multiple answers to the questions hopefully coming from colleagues offering different opinions and perspectives.
There is a difference of ways how one looks at it – let's say a rough characterization of things. For example, let's consider our school exam questions. Broadly speaking, in the genre of science and engineering, in particular in engineering – the answers sought by teachers are a definitive and precise one. In the Humanities disciplines however – a definitive answer is not encouraged, especially in non-objective questions. The teachers look for answers from students who can demonstrate curiosity and critical thinking.
If that is so – then most talented students who come to study engineering – get the first dose of the necessity of doing things precisely, albeit with some assumptions and approximations. The second and subsequent doses come from the constraints of practicality – many of which have been discussed in other threads. Perhaps – the experiences give an impression in students' and practicing engineers' mind that established practices and methods – such as those outlined in Standards Codes and Cook-books – are what matters most.
They do – but not always. Some jobs, especially in cases of non-routine engineering – one is expected to look for alternatives – examining and screening each from different perspectives. To look for new ideas – innovative thoughts – innovative products and methods, mostly developed by technology firms. Here is something from Einstein's Unruly Hair . . . Curiosity – is the mother of all innovations – of the necessary source of energy required for accomplishments – of all great ideas that moved humans forward . . .
Engineering graduate schools (for that matter, all graduate schools) cater to build this aspect of the profession. Once – the engine of curiosity is there – creativity flowers into innovations – as well as lets one to look for what innovations are available. And in this age of Internet – global resources are rather easy to find and access.
I leave it at this.
--------------------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD
Website Links and Profile
Original Message:
Sent: 02-17-2026 04:34 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Can engineering practice benefit from innovations more quickly?
Innovations in engineering practice, science, and technology enable better, safer engineering solutions. How can we identify those innovations and move them into common professional use sooner?
- How do you learn about innovations you can use?
- If you find a better way to solve an engineering problem, how do you let others know?
- How do academic researchers learn what practice issues need solutions?
- How do practicing engineers learn what issues academics have solved?
- Are there better ways to accomplish these technology transfers?
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------