This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
The purpose of science is to reveal how the physical world works. The human world, including psychology and other social sciences, is part of the physical world. The human experience of consciousness, including our ability to experience aspects of the physical world through our sensory apparatus, is part of science.
Speaking with greater clarity, why did the subject of the investigation deform or break? Why did some of its material disappear? Why have the strength characteristics become degraded?
As I plug away at writing the materials-engineering-informed failure-analysis book that has been on and off my “Get it Done!” list since 2003, I have at last come to the part about writing the report.
So, why did it fail? If the failure is due to mechanical causes, including fracture, wear and deformation, a true answer is always “because the stress exceeded the strength.”
My favorite example is the story of why human-resource people decided that they should discourage people from “using knowledge in the workplace.” Huh? I really did not understand this idea at first.
In the last post (part 2), I discussed my definition of critical thinking. Critical thinking is only one skill set in the “took kit of thinking” that I have developed over the last 25 years. In order of our natural tendencies, I usually list the six basic thinking types as follows.
We talked about David Levy’s book Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology in part 1. There is no similar book for people involved in failure analysis, although that will change if I ever finish the book I have been working on since 2003.