TITLE:
Observational Data under Uncertainty: Engineering Epistemology, Witness Testimony, and Public Safety
AUTHORS:
Chad Wanless
KEYWORDS:
Engineering Epistemology, Engineering Methodology, Hazard Assessment, Forensic Engineering, Public Safety, Model Selection, Box’s Law, Engineering Models, Risk Assessment, Controversial Engineering Problems, UAP
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Applied Sciences,
Vol.16 No.9,
September
10,
2026
ABSTRACT: From the perspective of the general public, science is often viewed as having a single approach to evaluating witness testimony. In practice, however, different scientific disciplines have developed different evidentiary methodologies because they operate under different professional responsibilities. Academic scientific disciplines are primarily concerned with establishing causal understanding and therefore generally assign limited evidentiary weight to observational testimony in isolation. By contrast, the applied scientific discipline of engineering operates under legislated obligations to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Consequently, engineering routinely makes safety-critical decisions under conditions where complete certainty is unattainable. Engineering legislation, professional standards, and engineering methodologies therefore require credible witness testimony to be treated as observational data instead of anecdotal, which must be evaluated alongside physical evidence rather than excluded solely because it is observational in nature. This paper examines the engineering epistemology underlying that distinction and demonstrates how legislated engineering safeguards—including hazard assessment, model validation, avoidance of unverified assumptions, consequence-based risk assessment, and the duty to communicate credible safety concerns—were developed to support decision-making under uncertainty. Historical case studies illustrate that catastrophic failures have repeatedly occurred when accepted models were defended despite contradictory operational observations. Although the methodology is applicable to any controversial subject involving credible public-safety implications, unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) are used as the primary case study to demonstrate how engineering evaluates uncertainty while fulfilling its legislated obligation to protect the public.