Freethought & Rationalism Archive

goody2shoes · 04-04-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
Ah, as I suspected, you fall right into category number 3. Surprising really, given your experience.

You stated this:

It is plainly obvious that you are talking a substantial load of baloney. If one does not take fundamental physics courses, then one's profession cannot be scientific? Wrong

It is going to be hard covering this in a logical manner, but here goes - numbered points for reference.

1. Biologists do not take these courses. Nor do many chemists. Nor any members of smaller scientific fields, such as paleontology. Therefore, many fields are perfectly scientific with little or no fundamental physics.

2. Historically many physicists themselves did not take these courses, or have any conception of these ideas. This did not prevent them being good, often brilliant scientists.

3. Children take science lessons from an early age, starting from no physical knowledge. They apply the scientific method perfectly adequately, at a lower level of complexity. Therefore it is possible to be scientific with little to zero levels of physical knowledge.

4. Research in many areas of 'physics', often perfectly fundamental, is actually no longer conducted by physics departments, but engineering departments. Important fields include thermodynamics, aerodynamics and fluid mechanics. Both these have particularly active research frontiers using the scientific method, all sorts of ingenious experiments and data collecting.

Engineers are not just designers and problem solvers, but are trained in scientific research as well, to a greater or lesser degree. I suspect your encounter of industrial engineers is not representative of the thousands of engineers that toil away conducting scientific research in R&D departments and universities.

5.You might even consider thermodynamics especially as a 'fundamental' field - I am not sure. But it was perfectly good for joule, kelvin, mach, carnot and the rest - all great scientists, all great engineers (some more so than others). Compared to physics students, we are actually more trained in these fields, as a whole.

Just because we tend to deal with macro and meso phenomena does not invalidate what we do as scientific work. In fact, in the aforementioned areas, we conduct a lot of research at the micro level. Individual atoms have become important on some of our frontiers.

6. I could give you a whole variety of physical phenomena that engineers have discovered, and a whole variety of empirical research performed. You want papers? I will give you scientific papers produced by engineers in engineering departments.

7. Engineering is the application of scientific principles to physical problem solving. Yes, it requires design, yes it requires making (although). It also requires massive amounts of scientific research and method. This is why I get irritated by people like you who do not regard engineers as scientific. And many researchers are true scientists.

---------------------------------------

Phew! Rant over with... take a breath now...

Yes, ranting is exactly what that was. (Totally useless.)

Yes biologists are scientists; chemists are scientists; chemical engineers are engineers; and you, sir, are engineer not a scientist. If you are so intense upon being a scientist, why not go to school to become one. I do indeed know the difference because I am both an engineer and a scientist and the disciplines are quite different.

So my basic point was that when echidna said that he was an engineer and knew a design when he saw one, he had the appropriate credentials to make such a statement. If his background was purely science, then he may or may not have the credentials. Engineering is a useful and honorable profession. It does not need artificial contrivances such as you propose to boost its stature.

It would nice if you could back off of "echidna" and "ManM" with respect to your silly notion. We have enough arrogant engineers running around without you training two more.

'Nuff said,

Goody

goody2shoes · 04-04-2002, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
I was wondering... goody2shoes - what is your actual position on the creation/evolution debate?

I believe in evolution. I also believe in God and that it was the method He used to create things. I mean that with respect to the entire physical unverse, not just living beings.

But as an INFP, I often cahnge my mind on some things.

Goody

goody2shoes · 04-04-2002, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian:


I would disagree with that. What exactly qualifies the Engineer to be able to recognize design in EVERYTHING when he/she sees it?

Certainly, I would trust an engineer who builds bridges for 20 years to be able to identify an artificial bridge. I would not, however, say he/she is more qualified than anyone else to determine if a living creature was designed, or the universe for that matter.

Put simply: A person who designs things is better qualified to recognize design than one who does something else for a living. I would not say perfectly or "everything" but at least better than (say) a lawyer -- like Phillip Johnson.

Goody

pseudobug · 04-04-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goody2shoes:


Put simply: A person who designs things is better qualified to recognize design than one who does something else for a living. I would not say perfectly or "everything" but at least better than (say) a lawyer -- like Phillip Johnson.

Goody

Well then, goody. You seem like a highly qualified person to explain something to the board.

Question 1--Is a snowflake the result of design?
Question 2-- Who is the designer?
Question 3-- What is the evidence that supports the fact that the designer has a "job" involving snowflake design?

RufusAtticus · 04-04-2002, 01:43 PM

Hey guys. Let the tempers cool down. I think this thread might be getting side tracked.

I have started a new thread, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000570" target="_blank">Are Engineers Scientists?</a>, to discuss that question.

-RvFvS

echidna · 04-04-2002, 02:28 PM

Strewth, my first thread in EC, I didn't realise the air was so volatile over here. Me and my throwaway lines.

Sorry mods, promise I�ll never ever start a new topic in EC again.

RufusAtticus · 04-04-2002, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
Strewth, my first thread in EC, I didn't realise the air was so volatile over here. Me and my throwaway lines.

Sorry mods, promise I�ll never ever start a new topic in EC again.

It's okay. Don't let it phase you. Sometimes threads go haywired. Feel free to continue to post.

-RvFvS

echidna · 04-04-2002, 03:36 PM

FWIW, I don�t seriously claim that my own mechanical engineering training give me an authority over biology or evolution.

I�d have thought that �I only have the weakest of groundings in the biology sciences, so forgive any technical transgressions� was plenty clear enough before launching the cruise missiles.

Sheesh.

echidna · 04-04-2002, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pseudobug:
So, you have a choice, echidna. You can hang out here and join in on the discussions and continue your education in a different field or you can play semantic games.

My guess is that some of the very knowledgable posters here will quickly grow tired of the latter if it is your choice.

Pseudobug, thank you so much for your kind welcome and understanding. Are you familiar with secular secondary school from 20 years ago ? If you are, I think you�d agree that in the context of our knowledge 20 years ago, there were far more unknowns than today, maybe you can list them better than I. Evolution was not as watertight as today, and for better or worse I remained agnostic. Yes, I fully accept that the evidence today just about seals Evolution as fact. I am genuinely curious, was this the case 20 years ago ?

It seems akin to someone deriding the Steady State Theory 50 years ago. It�s a lot easier to criticise 50 years later than without supporting data.

You can call me a dinosaur in my schooling, but your contempt is out of place.

And how we regard 20 years ago, is quite possibly how we are regarded 20 years from now.

goody2shoes · 04-04-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pseudobug:


Well then, goody. You seem like a highly qualified person to explain something to the board.

Question 1--Is a snowflake the result of design?
Question 2-- Who is the designer?
Question 3-- What is the evidence that supports the fact that the designer has a "job" involving snowflake design?

I'll take a shot at that -- not that I am an ID advocate, but the question deserves an answer I believe.

1.) Yes the snowflake is the result of design. The "design" lies in the physical laws that cause the snowflake to form (just like a machine can fabricate a device). Two physical aspects come into play. One is the basic laws of physics, which cause the snowflake to start, and the second is the feedback process that continues it along. Just about all physical laws involve feedback (something very familiar to engineers and less so to scientists)-- just as evolution does.

2.) The designer (if there is one) is whoever caused these laws to exst.

3.) A "job" implies an ongoing activity. What do you mean? Are you suggesting Pantheism?

Goody

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

04-04-2002, 01:43 PM	#25
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Hey guys. Let the tempers cool down. I think this thread might be getting side tracked. I have started a new thread, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000570" target="_blank">Are Engineers Scientists?</a>, to discuss that question. -RvFvS

04-04-2002, 02:28 PM	#26
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Strewth, my first thread in EC, I didn't realise the air was so volatile over here. Me and my throwaway lines. Sorry mods, promise I�ll never ever start a new topic in EC again.

04-04-2002, 03:36 PM	#28
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	FWIW, I don�t seriously claim that my own mechanical engineering training give me an authority over biology or evolution. I�d have thought that �I only have the weakest of groundings in the biology sciences, so forgive any technical transgressions� was plenty clear enough before launching the cruise missiles. Sheesh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.