Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Quetzal · 02-19-2002, 10:16 PM

liquid: Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the arguments are based both on presumed "authority" (I actually had a sycophantic cretinist state that I was unqualified to argue with a cretinist engineer because I wasn't an engineer!!!), and on the use of undefined buzzwords to gull the credulous. I responded in both cases with a simple demand that they provide examples from nature that would illustrate what they meant (i.e., an actual living organism that demonstrated their claims), and as usual never heard from them again. If they pop up again I'll be happy to forward some of their comments.

I also want to apologize to ME's - I remembered that two of the more rabid fundies I've encountered (ReMine and his greatest fan Fred Williams) are both EEs. So I guess it's not limited to the ME side of the house...

Maybe I'm reading too much into what is actually a statistically insignificant number of loudmouth cretinists - especially when you consider how many non-engineers there are in the cretinist camp.

emphryio:

Quote:

I've known some creationists engineers, they don't seem to be particularly more common than any other class of people. But they are a bit more willing to argue their position, while flashing big words at you that don't really make much sense.

Underneath the bigger words, they usually are as clueless as Joe Bob from the trailer park when it comes to evolution. Just a lot more confident.

LOL! You may be right. I certainly agree that the cretinist engineers that I've encountered don't seem to have much more on the ball than joe trailer-park. Just a bigger vocabulary.

liquid · 02-20-2002, 06:53 AM

Actually, something I meant to mention was that engineers commonly make use of evolutionary mechanics. Many of our computer programs 'breed' effective designs in an evolutionary manner, by introducing variation, 'reproduction' and selection into say, an engine block computer model.

Peez · 02-21-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

liquid:
A comment I both agree and disagree with! It is true that we are not generally trained to the same extent in empirical research as pure scientists, because there is so much more that we have to know. However, we are trained for it to an acceptable degree, particularly at the Masters degree level.
You see, we conduct experiments all the time, just as pure scientists do. We perform reliability tests on components, property tests on materials (material scientists are basically just micro-engineers). We conduct almost all experimentation in macro-physics these days. A simple example is thermodynamics and fluid mechanics experiments.

I certainly agree that many engineers carry out experiments, well-designed and relevant experiments, all the time. This is not necessarily science. Reliability tests on components, for example, is not science. I have the greatest respect for engineers, and I am sure that many do science, but as a group I would not consider engineers scientists any more than medical doctors.

Quote:

I did state they are technological achievements, not scientific research achievements. My point was that a lot of what the public consider science is actually performed by engineers, not scientists. Most of high-school physics areas of study is investigated by engineers, not physicists.

The public is notoriously ignorant of what science is, but once again I recognize that many engineers do science.

Quote:

But as an engineer, I was able to spot the rubbish printed about the 2LoT straight away, something that I might not have done if I was not trained. I really think this works both ways.

I agree that your training puts you in a good position to recognize such rubbish.

Quote:

(responding to copernacis):
I think the problem is that you are comparing industrial engineers with academic scientists. That is not a good or valid comparison. You should look at the surprising similarities between engineers in academia and scientists in academia.

But that is the point (in part). Scientists are academics. A biologist who ceases to do science and starts designing technology based on the biology he/she knows is more like an engineer. Academia is where you mostly find scientists. Yes, there are scientists doing applied research for businesses like pharmaceutical companies, but "pure research" is mostly restricted to academic institutions. This is not the case with engineering.

Quote:

Engineers are too politically conservative
I really object to this, being centrist for a European, I probably come across as left-wing in the US. I am certain this is more a symptom of white collar middle America than of engineering.

FWIW, I agree with you here.

Peez

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-20-2002, 06:53 AM	#32
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	Actually, something I meant to mention was that engineers commonly make use of evolutionary mechanics. Many of our computer programs 'breed' effective designs in an evolutionary manner, by introducing variation, 'reproduction' and selection into say, an engine block computer model.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.