Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Warcraft3 · 07-24-2003, 10:07 AM

Hello DMB:

Quote:

In the UK it is possible to take a degree in Electronic Engineering. It has more Maths and Physics than the more general Electrical Engineering. I know this because two members of my family have these degrees.

I find that very interesting.........

Quote:

It should not be ignored, however, that not all degrees in the same subject are equal. Certainly in the UK if you get a scientific or technological degree from a top university, you will have covered much more theory and have solved much more difficult problems than if you do it at one of the universities which are desperate to get students who are any good.

Hmmmm..........I also find this statement to be somewhat interesting........Im not sure if I would say that about the US universities.......I received my degree from a state school (Penn State University) and we had graduate students who came from some "top universities" as undergrads...........I was exposed to a wide variety of students through tutoring various subjects (math, physics, and my EE courses........) and I found the students from the top universities had the same general lack of knowledge as those who attended other schools (thus the need for tutoring)....so Im not sure if that is generally true for the US.

Maybe it is, but in my personal experience I just did not encounter that phenomenon.

Quote:

I'm sorry that I don't know where the statistics come from, but a few years ago I saw the results of a survey that showed that of people with some sort of technical degree the most likely to be believers (I think it was that and not just fundies) were engineers, then mathematicians, then physical scientists (including earth scientists) and least likely biological scientists.

I do not doubt that you saw such a survey, but I still find it strange that biological scientists would be least likely to be believers....since I see nothing in science which would cause one to not believe. But thats just my perspective.......

Quote:

I don't know where computer scientists appeared, but I would suspect that they would be at the engineers/mathematicians end.
I think this would make sense, in that people who actively studied something biological would on average know the most about evolution and related topics, and maths and engineering the least.

I dont know.....I just dont see evolution as a big issue for any religion or spiritual beliefs.....

Russ

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-24-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Over in GRD, I have a review of Steve Bruce's book God is Dead: Secularization in the West. It has a lot of very interesting stuff in it, most of it off-topic for this forum. However, in his discussion of science and religion, SB makes some comments that are very relevant to the creationism question, and in particular, to the abundance of creationist engineers.

In response to this I'll post an edited version of that I posted in that other thread:

Many engineers are religious because engineering is not science at all. It is often a form of rigid thinking within a paradigm.

Engineers know enough science to be dangerous as they say. When I was in school I moved from engineering to physics and I can say the paradigm of thinking is quite different. It was quite easy to find engineering students who were taught storybook narratives about scientific theories which were not quite right. These storybook ideas allowed them enough understanding to make proper decisions as would eventually be applied in engineering.

I actually question his claim that "hard" scientists are more religious that social ones. This has not been my experience and it tends to contradict other things I've read regarding religious identification surveys.

He is a sociologist so maybe he has an unconscious interest in painting the picture this way. His claim of making engineering another form of science is merely a word game.

DC

Warcraft3 · 07-24-2003, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
In response to this I'll post an edited version of that I posted in that other thread:

Many engineers are religious because engineering is not science at all. It is often a form of rigid thinking within a paradigm.

Engineering is not science? You really think that?

Quote:

Engineers know enough science to be dangerous as they say. When I was in school I moved from engineering to physics and I can say the paradigm of thinking is quite different. It was quite easy to find engineering students who were taught storybook narratives about scientific theories which were not quite right.

I found this was true among the physics students just as much as the engineering students. Many of them never really bothered to truly learn the physics and math from previous classes-----all they cared about was getting through the class...

Quote:

These storybook ideas allowed them enough understanding to make proper decisions as would eventually be applied in engineering.

How does one make proper decisions without understanding what is going on? I can think of many, many electrical engineering problems I did that required a good understanding of the math and physics.......

Quote:

His claim of making engineering another form of science is merely a word game.
DC

So you really dont think engineering is a science? Interesting.

Russ

pangloss · 07-24-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele

So you really dont think engineering is a science? Interesting.

Russ [/B]

I'd say it is an applied science. Afterall, that is what the engineering program websites seem to say!

Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it - obviously engineers of all sorts play important roles in society.

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-24-2003, 03:11 PM

Lets look at it this way..

I hate to use the dictionary but here goes.

Quote:

Science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

Obviously we are talking about #3

and...

Quote:

Engineering
1 : the activities or function of an engineer
2 a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people b : the design and manufacture of complex products <software engineering>

Clearly we are talking about #2.

Engineering is not science.

DC

RufusAtticus · 07-24-2003, 03:26 PM

I agree; engineering is not science, it's engineering. Just like mathematics is not science, it's mathematics. I don't see either of those statements as reflecting badly on engineering or mathematics.

echoes · 07-24-2003, 04:38 PM

It would seem to me that engineers often, but not always, engage in science. So while engineering isn't strictly science, it often crosses the line; obviously engineers have discovered previously unknown empirical phenomena in the course of their work.

Azathoth · 07-25-2003, 06:04 AM

Quote:

LOL I guess I did miss the "It seems to me" part. Sorry bout that LOL

Not a problem.I often begin any statements that are opinions,with something that says they are.It sometimes prevents confusion.

Quote:

LOL You keep saying that I seemed "sure" as if I made myself sound like I had done extensive research into the topic.....if I gave you that impression it wasnt intentional....

Again,no big deal.Since I didn't see something that stated it was an opinion,I assumed that you knew of some information I didn't.A study,perhaps,that had been done.

Quote:

I dont buy the idea that a signifigant number of people(including YECs) pick a specific technical field based on religious motivations (not counting Dr Jonathan Wells, of course...who did just that and has little respect from me because of it).....maybe it just goes completely against my way of thinking, but I find it hard to believe that people would do that in real life

The fact that you're here and continuing to post shows that you are better at dealing with such things than the people I'm discussing.I assume that you are not a Young Earth Creationist?

The YEC's that I know have a rather rigid,literal,interpretation of the bible.They can't really take any part of it as a metaphor,because,if they do,they would have to begin to doubt the whole thing.

Warcraft3 · 07-25-2003, 06:52 AM

Hello again Azathoth:

Quote:

Not a problem.I often begin any statements that are opinions,with something that says they are.It sometimes prevents confusion.

LOL Only if your readers actually register the statement

Quote:

Again,no big deal.Since I didn't see something that stated it was an opinion,I assumed that you knew of some information I didn't.A study,perhaps,that had been done.

Ill be sure to clarify things that are my opinion without any hard evidence in the future........

Quote:

The fact that you're here and continuing to post shows that you are better at dealing with such things than the people I'm discussing.I assume that you are not a Young Earth Creationist?

Indeed I am not a YEC. I am a Theistic Evolutionist with some IDish leaning as well........

Quote:

The YEC's that I know have a rather rigid,literal,interpretation of the bible.They can't really take any part of it as a metaphor,because,if they do,they would have to begin to doubt the whole thing.

Yeah, I find the YEC view to be problamatic scripturally...........too many anamolies within the text. It was actually scripture that first turned me away from YEC (back when I was the young age of 13), but thats another thread........

Russ

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-25-2003, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by echoes
It would seem to me that engineers often, but not always, engage in science. So while engineering isn't strictly science, it often crosses the line; obviously engineers have discovered previously unknown empirical phenomena in the course of their work.

Sure. but you've flipped it backwards. Non-scientists do discover new "laws" and whatnot on occasion. Of course engineers, since they are applying science, are more likely to do that.

However, engineers are tasked with things like "I need to design and have this bridge built" or "I need to make and manufacture a power control circuit" and so on. Much more often than not these do not involve new principles of nature.

An engineer discovering new principles which count as scientific (as opposed to ones that count as engineering principles) are far more rare than scientists who do that as a daily course of their work. Again, as someone else stated, there is nothing wrong with this. It is simply the way it is.

DC

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

07-24-2003, 03:26 PM	#46
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I agree; engineering is not science, it's engineering. Just like mathematics is not science, it's mathematics. I don't see either of those statements as reflecting badly on engineering or mathematics.

07-24-2003, 04:38 PM	#47
echoes Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: PUERTO RICO Posts: 750	It would seem to me that engineers often, but not always, engage in science. So while engineering isn't strictly science, it often crosses the line; obviously engineers have discovered previously unknown empirical phenomena in the course of their work.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.