“It is impossible to calculate the way a structure actually stands up,” he says. “All the engineer has to do is find one way that the structure could stand up.”
I don't think enough people recognize the extent to which engineering is still a work-in-progress. The things we know with absolute certainty are actually quite limited.
The idea that engineering is an aspect of the art of building which should be preserved is not widespread, but has a lot of appeal. I hope Ochsendorf's efforts help.
It's worth noting that Roman engineering was not at all perfect. Plenty of great structures did fail during earthquakes or due ground settlement. What's left are the ones worth studying.
awaiting_deletion
May 27, 15 6:52 am
i like the notion of geometry over strictly calculations.....and of course we can blame Galileo for all things modern science methods. Husserl did,Derrida did,even Hobbes took Galileo's method....
http://m.nautil.us/issue/24/error/why-we-should-let-the-pantheon-crack
interesting stuff! thanks for posting.
“It is impossible to calculate the way a structure actually stands up,” he says. “All the engineer has to do is find one way that the structure could stand up.”
I don't think enough people recognize the extent to which engineering is still a work-in-progress. The things we know with absolute certainty are actually quite limited.
The idea that engineering is an aspect of the art of building which should be preserved is not widespread, but has a lot of appeal. I hope Ochsendorf's efforts help.
It's worth noting that Roman engineering was not at all perfect. Plenty of great structures did fail during earthquakes or due ground settlement. What's left are the ones worth studying.
i like the notion of geometry over strictly calculations.....and of course we can blame Galileo for all things modern science methods. Husserl did,Derrida did,even Hobbes took Galileo's method....