Do engineers and lawyers think differently?

The dilemma

Engineers, scientists and lawyers are all highly intelligent and respected members of society due to their problem-solving skills. However, there is often a perception that lawyers and engineers/scientists have difficulties in understanding one another, especially when working together on complex business issues that involve both technology and law. It can seem like these two professionals approach problems in completely different ways and even speak and think differently.

Why do they differ in their thinking patterns? Are these differences innate, or are they learned over time? Is education or training a cause? Can we solve this? Let's delve into these questions.

How do scientists/engineers think?

Modern science and technology are largely based on the concept of reductionism. Reductionism is an approach to understanding complex systems or phenomena by reducing them to their simpler or fundamental components, and studying how those components work and interact with each other.

Example: Reductionism can be applied to the study of complex biological systems, such as organs by breaking them down into their component parts and studying each part individually. For instance, organs can be studied by examining the tissues that make up the organ. These tissues, in turn, can be understood by studying the cells that form the tissue. The cells can be further analyzed by examining the individual cellular organelles that are components of the cells. The complexity of these organelles can be explored by examining biological molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. The structure of these molecules can be further analyzed by studying their atomic structure.

Another example: Modular design is a software engineering approach that involves breaking a complex software system into smaller, self-contained modules or components. Each module is designed to perform a specific function and can be tested and debugged independently. This modular approach allows software developers to understand and work with complex software systems more easily by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable parts.

How do scientists/engineers solve problems?

A reductionist way of thinking is often associated with the First Principles Reasoning approach of problem-solving.?

In the First Principles Reasoning, the goal is to employ reductionism and identify the fundamental principles and components that govern a particular system. Then, those principles and components can be used as the starting point for constructing a solution. The approach involves analyzing the problem at a deep level, asking fundamental questions about the nature of the system and its components, and using logical reasoning to deduce the consequences of those principles. First Principles Reasoning is extremely useful as it helps avoid assumptions and see the problem from a different perspective, which leads to innovative solutions.

Example: Let’s say we want to implement a policy to reduce plastic usage in our office premises. So, a First Principles Reasoning for formulating this policy would involve: (1) Undertaking a study to identify and analyze where and how plastic is being used in the office premises (2) Identifying activities in which plastic usage can be reduced or eliminated (3) Explore alternatives to plastic, such as cups, cutlery, containers and office stationery which are reusable or biodegradable or made with recycled materials. (4) Raising awareness amongst employees regarding the impacts of plastic and promoting education about alternative materials to promote a culture of environmental sustainability.

This approach is extremely helpful in breaking down technical problems and constructing innovative solutions from scratch. Here is a popular video in which Elon Musk explains First Principles Reasoning for solving the problem of making battery packs more affordable.

How do lawyers think?

Lawyers rely on the art of persuasion. The primary objective of litigation lawyers is to present the facts and arguments in a way that will persuade a judge or jury to rule in favor of their client. Transaction lawyers use facts and arguments to persuade external stakeholders such as customers or vendors to accept contract terms that are favorable to the company. In-house lawyers present facts and arguments to C-suite executives to persuade them to take or avoid certain actions that could minimize legal risk for the company.

To achieve the above outcomes, lawyers place a great deal of importance on legal authorities, particularly precedents (earlier decisions of the courts). Legal authorities are sources of law or guidance that are used to support a particular position or to establish that a certain action or decision is based on existing laws, rules, or precedents. Examples of authorities include legislation, executive orders, and the decisions of courts.?

Earlier decisions of the courts are particularly important as persuasive tools. They serve as guidance for similar cases in the future and establish how the law has been applied in similar situations in the past. This in turn can help courts and other legal professionals understand how the law should be applied to the present problem.?

For instance, if a court has ruled that a person who causes injuries due to mental incapacity will not be excused, future cases with similar circumstances will likely follow this precedent and reach the same conclusion.

How do lawyers solve problems?

The uniqueness of legal systems brings us to a very distinct way of problem-solving, Analogical Reasoning. Analogical Reasoning is the fundamental tool in a lawyer’s toolkit for problem solving.

Analogical Reasoning is a method of thinking in which a conclusion is drawn about a particular situation based on the similarity of that situation to another situation that has already been experienced or studied. As discussed above, Analogical Reasoning in legal systems is rooted in the importance given to legal precedents (earlier decisions of the courts).?

Consequently, budding lawyers are trained to search for earlier court decisions, expert opinions and commentaries, and solve the current problem based on the principles established by previous court decisions or expert opinions.?

In simple terms, lawyers like to base their arguments on inspirations drawn from how similar situations have been handled in the past.

Let us see how Analogical Reasoning would lead to a significantly different approach for the same problem.?The problem: We want to implement a policy to reduce plastic usage in our office premises.

An Analogical Reasoning approach to formulating this policy would involve: (1) Researching to learn how other organizations have implemented plastic reduction policies? (2) Examining the policies of these organizations to see which ones might apply to our context (3) Combine and adapt elements from various policies to create a customized policy that is tailored to our specific needs.

Do engineers/scientists and lawyers think differently?

Let’s come back to our original question. To summarize, a lawyer predominantly looks for existing approaches to solve the problems at hand. In contrast, an engineer/scientist wants to deconstruct the problem into bits and pieces, and build entirely new solutions from scratch.

To put it simply, First Principles Reasoning is a highly effective method for addressing technical problems, while Analogical Reasoning is highly successful in resolving legal issues.?

Analogical Reasoning vs. First Principles Reasoning: Who wins?

Depending on who you are, you might be convinced by now that either the engineer’s approach (First Principles Reasoning) or the lawyer’s approach (Analogical Reasoning) is the best one.

I don’t blame you. Humans have a tremendous tendency to choose sides and see our team win. But remember, the answer never lies in black or white; rather it lies in the gray.

Many researchers argue that Analogical Reasoning is a crucial cognitive mechanism that distinguishes human cognition from that of other intelligent species. Human beings are naturally good at perceiving the commonality between two situations and generating inferences driven by the commonalities. Douglas Hofstadter, a renowned American scholar of cognitive science puts it bluntly: “Analogy is the engine of cognition.”

There is significant evidence that Analogical Reasoning has played a role in human evolution and has contributed to the development of our cognitive abilities. Researchers have also suggested that analogical reasoning may have helped early humans to make sense of complex social relationships and to communicate with one another. Analogical Reasoning may also have played a role in the development of language and in the ability to think abstractly and to solve complex problems.

Yet, First Principles Reasoning has helped break scientific and technological barriers. Using First Principles Reasoning, humans have identified and challenged assumptions that may be limiting or incorrect to arrive at novel and unconventional solutions that are not based on preconceived notions. We owe our modern world of internet, mobile phones, airplanes, drones, space crafts and life-saving vaccines to First Principles Reasoning.

Therefore, it is impossible to argue that First Principles Reasoning is better than Analogical Reasoning, or vice versa. Both reasoning styles have made unique contributions to the advancement of the human race.

Key Takeaway

It may sound diplomatic, but there is no easy answer. In real-world situations, good lawyers, scientists, or engineers do not limit themselves with one problem solving approach. Depending upon the problem at hand, the problem-solver has to adopt the First Principles Reasoning, Analogical Reasoning or both to arrive at a solution. These are not exclusive options, and there are several other approaches to reasoning not covered in this article.?

The intention here is not to pit one class of professionals or one style of reasoning against the other. Rather, the intention here is to acknowledge the fact that due to varied educational, social and cultural backgrounds, we may be predisposed to one style of thinking.?

The bottom line here is to not let our predisposition dictate our thinking and reasoning styles. I firmly believe that both lawyers and scientists would greatly enrich themselves if they occasionally look at the world through a different lens.

Thank you! This is my first article on the LinkedIn platform. I appreciate you taking the time to read this article. I welcome any comments or suggestions you may have, as they help me to grow and improve. If you have any feedback, please don't hesitate to leave a comment on my posts or contact me directly. I truly value your input. Thank you again for your support and engagement.

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are my own and do not reflect the views or opinions of any current or former employer or any organizations with which I am affiliated.