RufusAtticus

Discuss.

Please keep the shouting to a minimum.

-RvFvS

phlebas

Well, I think they have different job descriptions, so there are probably very few people who are paid to be both. I, however, am paid to be neither

But being an engineer doesn't make you a master of the scientific method or well-versed on all the scientific discoveries out there. (Doesn't preclude it, though.)

Also, being a scientist doesn't mean you don't know some engineering principles and what-not.

I'm sure both camps have a few creationists and other types of ignorami

Coragyps

Two cents or less worth from a chemist who holds a PhD, but has never done real research since that degree: most engineers I have known don't think of themselves as "scientists", and often view us (chemists and a couple of physicists, in my personal experience) as impractical, "ivory-tower" sort of folk. And their view has some support, too, as very few chemists have a clue about, for instance, doing reactions at larger than benchtop scale. Conversely, most engineers I knew had a pretty sketchy grasp of chemistry per se, though they could tell you how to get rid of the heat generated by the reaction after they looked up how much heat that was.
The real dispute between the fields goes back to undergraduate razzing between them - you can't do anything technical on a real-world scale without both.
I will call myself a Scientist if I think it will help me sway the great unwashed masses in an evo/cre debate, but what I do for a living is a little science, a little engineering, and a fair bit of plain old dumb labor. And I won't call myself an engineer unless they let me drive the train.

NialScorva

My brother's a scientist, I'm an engineer. There seems to be two completely different means of thinking involved. The scientist tends to translate reality into ideas, while the engineer tends to translate ideas into reality. Scientists tend to let their imagination be somewhat constrained by the reality of the problem, missing out on some esoteric but occasionally useful solutions and having a better grasp of the more mainline solutions. Engineers tend to have a problem with the implicit constraints of the problem if they're not constantly reminded of them, since they deal in ideas before reality. This becomes readily apparent when they move outside their primarily fields and the constraints of reality have not been properly translated into the constraints of their ideas.

NeilUnreal

Yikes! I’m one of those people who really do get paid to do both. I do artificial intelligence research and development, so I have to understand and work with the current theories, but I’m also responsible for migrating theories into products.

My experience is that engineers and scientists do think differently in many situations. In part it’s kind of figure/ground difference. Scientists tend to look at problems in a positive sense, i.e. what’s “there.” Engineers tend to look at problems in a negative sense, i.e. how can I most effectively plug this “gap.” That is, scientists try to create more “there,” engineers try to reduce the amount of “gap.” This sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing, but it leads to different professional mindsets and ways of solving problems.

For one thing, the best scientific solutions (theories) lead to new questions. The best engineering solutions (designs) lead to new answers.

-Neil

goody2shoes

Without shouting, I direct you to the MIT website for Engineering. It is:


<a href="http://web.mit.edu/engineering/" target="_blank">http://web.mit.edu/engineering/</a>

Then I direct you to the MIT website for Science. It is:


<a href="http://web.mit.edu/science/" target="_blank">http://web.mit.edu/science/</a>

I think that the two different sites speak for themselves. (But what does MIT know about engineering and science that they would have two different schools?)

Goody

tronvillain

Shouldn't this be in Science & Skepticism? Anyway, I will have to say that they are generally not scientists, in that they are generally applying science, but they can be. I have a lot of respect for engineering though, and I think an engineering approach to biology and psychology can be quite useful.

liquid

Right, I am not going to repost my <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000565&p=" target="_blank">rant</a>, because I assume that you have all read it. It makes some points that I want you to know but will not cover again to save those who have seen it.

I think we need to clarify what is mean by a scientist, particularly in relation to this quote

What is a scientist except somebody who applies the scientific method? It is certainly not a physicist/chemist/biologist as g2s would have you believe.

As for your arguments, goody2shoes, they have devolved to an argument-to-authority level, and as we all know on the board, that means that your point holds little water. MIT presumably seperate science and engineering for administrative reasons, not philosophical ones. My point is not that engineers do the same sort of work as core scientists, but that we do plenty of quite adequate scientific work.

I propose that we consider a scientist as someone who generates scientific papers. If this is agreed, then I will fetch some examples written by engineers.

Oolon Colluphid

Erm, my tuppence: ‘science’ derives from ‘knowledge’. Some people acquire the basic knowledge; these we’d call scientists. Others apply the knowledge; these we might call technologists. Engineering falls, in principle, under the heading of applied science, or technology. HOWEVER, there is such interaction between the two that there is no hard and fast line to draw. ‘Scientists’ may work on basic study in order to apply it to some practical purpose... and so may technologists.

Since there’s no way I can think of to separate even the most obscure, abstract research from what may be done with it (everyone’s working on a problem, be it finding a new material for lining refugee camp tents or the genetics of a parasite), the distinction – and, IMO, this discussion – is somewhat pointless.

Since there’s no sign of this reverting to anything to do with E/C, I hope no-one will mind me moving it to Science & Skepticism.

Oolon

liquid

Good call on the move oolon.

which is exactly my point (except for the discussion bit - hey, I'm an infidel, I'm allowed my pride!).

There is no distinguishable boundary between the two fields - it is a matter of very inter-related emphasis.