Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Dam Configuration Legislative Testimony
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_—_Dam_Configuration_Legislative_Testimony
Properties
Instance of
HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
Applied to
Dam configuration analysis presented before state legislative committee
Balancing with
Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
Concrete expression
The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE reached different engineering conclusions (low dams vs. one high dam) from the same physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc.), and this disagreement is ethically permissible because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
In this context, the permissibility principle applies because both engineers agreed on the underlying physical facts but reached different conclusions based on their best professional judgment about the application of those facts — a paradigm case of legitimate engineering disagreement.
Invoked by
Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
Tension resolution
The permissibility of disagreement is bounded by the objectivity obligation: each engineer must ground their differing conclusion in engineering data and honest conviction, not advocacy bias.
Source Evidence
Source text
Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
Text references
Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
TTL
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_—_Dam_Configuration_Legislative_Testimony> a proeth:HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Dam Configuration Legislative Testimony" ;
proeth:appliedto "Dam configuration analysis presented before state legislative committee" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The State Power Commission PE and the Private Power Company PE reached different engineering conclusions (low dams vs. one high dam) from the same physical facts (water flow, soil conditions, rainfall, runoff, etc.), and this disagreement is ethically permissible because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "114" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "114" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "In this context, the permissibility principle applies because both engineers agreed on the underlying physical facts but reached different conclusions based on their best professional judgment about the application of those facts — a paradigm case of legitimate engineering disagreement." ;
proeth:invokedby "Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness",
"State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness" ;
proeth:principleclass "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The permissibility of disagreement is bounded by the objectivity obligation: each engineer must ground their differing conclusion in engineering data and honest conviction, not advocacy bias." ;
proeth:textreferences "Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.",
"Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 114 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T15:38:37.746944"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 114 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
114
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
First case
114
Generated
2026-03-02T15:27:43.598741+00:00
Attributed to
Case 114 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T15:38:37.746944
Generated by
ProEthica Case 114 Extraction