Or When fear and shame override logicWelcome to the next “What would an Engineer Do?” article.
As a reminder, these articles take current issues that sit outside engineering and look at them through an engineering lens.
The goal is twofold:

1. To help you better understand the core attributes of engineering expertise by seeing how they apply elsewhere. Sometimes the different context makes things easier to understand.
2. To show how those same attributes can be applied outside of engineering. This allows you to leverage your engineering skills even more globally.

In this article I am going to apply good global engineering principles to shaken baby syndrome.

Why shaken baby syndrome?
Depending on the country you are in, you might have seen debate about the validity of evidence used in shaken baby syndrome convictions.
You might also be in a country where courts now require an independent witness. The physical evidence alone is no longer considered sufficient.
At the very least, you may remember a time when that physical evidence was accepted as proof.
It is in a state of flux so it is a timely topic, which makes for greater interest. It is also well outside of what many would assume is the domain of engineering.

Some background
You can read more about the science and controversy around shaken baby syndrome here, but the key points to note are:

• It isn’t ethically possible to run proper double-blind experiments in this context.
• It hasn’t been proved that no other mechanisms can produce the same symptoms: subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage, and encephalopathy.
• Other medical conditions are known to sometimes cause similar effects.
• Reviews that claimed to support the shaken baby hypothesis often relied on circular reasoning: the cases examined had already been classified as abuse victims based on the assumed evidence.

If you think like an engineer, and especially like a global engineer, you know that logic and first principles must guide your thinking. You also know that first principles are found through the application of the scientific method. And in this case, there are no first principles that justify concluding that “shaken baby syndrome” has occurred.
And that means something more concerning.  Because the evidence that was used as first principles cannot be treated as first principles, around the world people have been convicted of a crime they did not commit. And a terrible crime at that – so terrible they would never have committed it.
And yet still, when courts are confronted with reports challenging the status quo based on the above, some judges have responded by saying words to the effects of:

• The argument that the scientific evidence is not actually scientific is radical.
• It seeks to set aside decades of study.
• It stands against other respectable scientific opinion.

For any engineer, that kind of reasoning is known to be flawed. It reveals a misunderstanding of how science works. And when it comes to the scientific method, an engineer should think like any other scientist.
You likely recall Albert Einstein’s response to the book titled 100 Authors Against Einstein. He said “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” This shows that science works on facts and logic – not popularity – and a single piece of evidence that contradicts a theory disproves that theory.
Science is not based on consensus or longevity of an idea. It rests on evidence and logic. And in this instance, it seems the logic has been lost.

How are we in this situation? More use of engineering expertise principles
Did the judges not understand science? Or, was there something else going on, something that would be familiar to the global engineer?
Imagine if you were a judge who just had it suggested to them that a key piece of evidence that the legal profession relies has come under question. For context, the legal profession relied on this so much that some defendants said that their own lawyers did not believe them.  You would start thinking that maybe many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. That is not a pleasant thought, you would be attached to the original idea that the evidence is strong and your profession has done nothing wrong. You would be fixated on it – this would make it hard to accept contradictory evidence.
Ideally, this attachment would not result in a fixation that would override the proper application of first principles.
As an engineer, you know that once contradictory evidence emerges, previous conclusions must be revisited.
So, we would hope and expect, that an engineer would, when in such a situation, understand the weakness of the theory, and acknowledge that all prior decisions made (under the assumption the theory was a strong one) are not justified.
First principles should override fixation and attachment. But this is not what seemed to happen with these judges.

The takeaway for the global engineer
This case highlights a deeper professional lesson.
Are you willing to hold yourself to the same standard; detaching from your own preferred theories, your past assumptions, and maybe even your professional pride when the evidence shifts?
That can be the challenge of genuine first-principles thinking.
Think back to a time when you were attached to an idea that clouded your judgement. Or when you saw a colleague resist evidence that contradicted their preferred model. Anyone can do it. The key is to notice it and then to do your best to let go of it – no matter how serious the issue at hand.
 
References used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Guthkelch
https://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-court-ruling-in-shaken-baby-case-was-ignorant-and-embarrassing-20251013-p5n25z.html
https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2025/diagnosing-murder
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/this-man-spent-six-years-in-jail-but-experts-say-his-case-has-question-marks-all-over-it-20251029-p5n6c9.html

Or, let’s apply boundary analysis to The Holy Land
In the realm of engineering, we often tackle complex systems by identifying their fundamental principles, understanding systemic behaviours, and reframing the challenge. As you would know from my prior writing – these are the three core attributes of the global engineer.
Also, by exploring how these three attributes can be used to solve non-engineering problems, we can sometimes better understand their application – analogies are good like that.
This will be the first article where we do this. And I thought I might as well go all in with something both timely and controversial. So let's apply global engineering expertise to a longstanding and deeply entrenched geopolitical issue: the Israel–Palestine conflict.
First Principles: Understanding Human Behaviour
One of the first principles to acknowledge is the inherent human tendency towards in-group preference and out-group suspicion. Evolutionary psychology suggests that such behaviours may have been advantageous for early human survival, leading to a natural predisposition towards xenophobia. This predisposition can manifest in societies as a persistent undercurrent of tension between different groups.
Moreover, history has shown that leaders can exploit these tendencies, amplifying fear and hostility towards 'the other' to consolidate power and unify their base. This manipulation often leads to increased conflict, as fear becomes a tool for political gain.
Systemic Thinking: The Dynamics of Conflict
From a systems perspective, the Israel–Palestine conflict is not merely a series of isolated incidents but a complex interplay of historical grievances, cultural differences, and political interests. Within any large population, there will always be individuals or factions inclined towards aggression or retaliation. This reality creates a feedback loop where acts of violence beget further violence, perpetuating the cycle of conflict.
Additionally, the international community, particularly the United States, provides substantial financial and military support to Israel and Palestinians. This support is often justified as a means to promote stability and peace in the region. However, without mechanisms to ensure that this aid contributes to reducing conflict, it can inadvertently sustain the status quo.
Reframing the Problem: Shifting Focus from Sides to Systems
Traditional approaches to the conflict often involve taking sides or attempting to assign blame. You have probably found you naturally do that yourself – asking which side it right. However, this framing has proven ineffective in achieving lasting peace. Instead, we can reframe the problem by focusing on creating systems that incentivize peaceful behaviour, regardless of the underlying political or ideological differences. You don’t need to choose a side, you just focus on helping people have a better life.
Engineering a Solution: Applying Control Theory
Control theory, a fundamental concept in engineering, involves designing systems that maintain desired outputs despite external disturbances. Applying this to the Israel–Palestine conflict, we can conceptualize a feedback mechanism where international aid is contingent upon the level of peace maintained in the region.
For instance, a predetermined amount of aid, say the amount given in 2024, could be pledged annually, adjusted for inflation. However, any acts of aggression or escalation of conflict would result in a proportional reduction of this aid. This negative feedback loop would create a tangible incentive for all parties to minimize conflict, as continued aggression would directly impact the resources available to them. Governments especially would be motivated to ensure these funds continue to flow in so they can keep taxes low while still providing services.
Such a system would also empower moderate voices advocating for peace, as they could point to the direct consequences of conflict on their community's well-being. It shifts the focus from ideological victories to practical outcomes, aligning incentives with the desired state of peace.
The Political Engineer vs the Political Scientist
In my book, I compare engineers with other professionals. One comparison was with scientists and the use of boundary analysis common in engineering textbooks, but often absent in scientific textbooks – even when the basic topic is the same. While scientists are, almost by definition, focused on why a system works, engineers are happy to understand how it works so they can move onto the next step to implement what they are working on. In this case, we don’t care about the specific action the people will take to ensure peace, we simply care that they will take action of some sort and keep trying until they find it. The scientific question can be answered after the engineering solution is implemented.
Conclusion: Engineering Peace Through Systemic Incentives
While the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply complex, applying engineering principles like control theory offers a novel perspective. By designing systems that align incentives with peaceful behaviour, we can create environments where cooperation becomes more beneficial than conflict. This approach doesn't solve all underlying issues but provides a framework for reducing violence and promoting stability.
Disclaimer and request
Because you are likely an erudite reader (and if you don’t know what that means, then look it up – you will laugh when you read the meaning and think about how I assumed the word described you) you have potentially noted that this is a lot like an idea put by Edward de Bono (not the marmite idea). This is true – I have reverse engineered his idea and expanded upon it.
If you think of any other non-engineering topics you would like to see given engineering attention, then let me know. We can even thrash out a solution together.