Discussion of “Is reliability a new science?”
I would like to thank the participants of the panel at the 10th International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Reliability (MMR 2017) for their thoughtful and thorough discussion on this topic. In considering the fundamentals of a discipline, it is often possible to gain additional understanding about its strengths, weaknesses, and potential gaps. I confess that my perspective on the topic most closely matches thoughts expressed by William Meeker about the crux of the matter being tied to the choice of definitions. There are a multitude of candidate definitions, and each of the panelists chose to focus on different aspects from different sources. I opted for the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Based on this definition, I would conclude that reliability can qualify as a science because (1) it shares elements of intellectual and practical activity through the development of methodologies to characterize observed patterns, (2) it considers both the structure and behavior of the systems that it seeks to characterize, and (3) it involves notions of obtaining data (observation) and prioritizes the collection of high-quality data with known pedigree through experimentation. More broadly, however, I think that it has elements that expand beyond just a science and contain elements of engineering. To illustrate this, I present some of the thinking that has recently been occurring related to the distinction between statistical science and statistical engineering.