So a couple weeks ago there was a news item that caught my attention:
To paraphrase:
"Scientists create tiny robotic insect"
This, of course, got me thinking about what a scientist (and therefore science) actually is. Because, to me, engineers created this robot and not scientists. This my seem trivial, but I think that it is important, as it may give us some insights into the philosophy of science. But let me elaborate....
Engineers are concerned about ends. How can I build this bridge to be structural? How can I create a tiny robot fly? How can I accomplish X? These are the questions that I think engineers are concerned with.
Scientists, on the other hand, are not concerned about ends at all. (They may be personally, but not scientifically) Rather, scientists are concerned with theories, which are universal in scope. A theory increases our stock of knowledge in the world, if it tests successfully. Scientists do tests to try and judge the accuracy of their various theories, but as far as science is concerned the practical results of these tests are irrelevant.
Therefore, I don't see how creators of tiny flying robots are scientists. I don't see any hypothesis being tested by creating these things (beyond a technological hypothesis of substance x can be made to do action y) and I don't see how there creation increases theoretical knowledge. That said, it greatly increases technological knowledge (and I'm sure engineers are watching stuff like this closely), but this knowledge is for ends.
It seems to me that you have created a false distinction. By your lights, every scientist is also an engineer, because good luck testing a hypothesis if you don't have the ability to construct or design the testing apparatus.
And every engineer is also a scientist, because if the X in "how do I accomplish X?" is something that the engineer does not yet know how to do, he is going to have to enter a theoretical phase where he generates and tests various hypotheses, as all engineers in fact do.
Not even mathematicians work purely theoretically anymore. It is rare to find one who hasn't ever had to engineer a program in Mathematica, GAP, MAGMA, et cetera. in order to step towards a solution to a theoretical problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
just accept it and move on. I don't like it when my musician friends point out that I'm mis-using the term "key" with "note" or aria/arrangement, or rendition/medley.
I have but a vague knowledge as to the distinctions of these terms. But neither did they know the difference between litigation, legislation, and jurisprudence. To them, it's just one big blob of "things concerning law"
Another example, what is the difference between a rule and statute?
What about the difference between slander, libel, and defamation?
I would not expect a lay person to know that.
Likewise, I'm not going to harp too much on when articles and reporting get the science wrong, and more commonly get terms mixed up. You'll just drive yourself crazy if you do.
edit: FWIW, as an engineer myself, I generally agree with your distinction.
I agree that science is about discovering the fundamental laws of the universe and engineering is utilizing science to build things, and that there is an important distinction.
However, the problem with the original question is that it is a quote from a major news source, not a scholarly journal or academia at all.
Major news is not very good at understanding the nuances of what they report, let alone something like this.
Anyone in a white coat is either a doctor or a scientist according to most major news outlets.
Also the articled said "scientist created a robot" they are referring to people's profession not what they were at the time. They can be scientists by profession that delve in engineering at this particular project.
From my understanding, Engineering is doing all the calculations and such beforehand knowing what results you will achieve prior to even beginning work. We don't want a bridge that might work. Science is more like hobby shopping, where you test something out to see if it works, if it doesn't, you tweak it and continue. It is okay for an experiment to fail, it is generally not okay for something that was engineered.
It seems to me that you have created a false distinction. By your lights, every scientist is also an engineer, because good luck testing a hypothesis if you don't have the ability to construct or design the testing apparatus.
And every engineer is also a scientist, because if the X in "how do I accomplish X?" is something that the engineer does not yet know how to do, he is going to have to enter a theoretical phase where he generates and tests various hypotheses, as all engineers in fact do.
.
I really don't think so. I of course think that the disciplines overlap and that, broadly, everyone is an engineer of some sort. One cannot ever do anything on purpose without goal-oriented thinking, thus everyone is an engineer. But, professionally, not everyone is an engineer. Scientists did not build CERN to test Quantum Theory, but rather, Engineers built CERN at the request of scientists so that they could study physics. To me it is utterly laughable to think that quantum theorists built CERN or Fermilab. This is the distinction that I am talking about, goal based thinking (build CERN for physicists) and scientific based thinking (using the built CERN to test hypotheses and theories).
just accept it and move on. I don't like it when my musician friends point out that I'm mis-using the term "key" with "note" or aria/arrangement, or rendition/medley.
I have but a vague knowledge as to the distinctions of these terms. But neither did they know the difference between litigation, legislation, and jurisprudence. To them, it's just one big blob of "things concerning law"
Another example, what is the difference between a rule and statute?
What about the difference between slander, libel, and defamation?
I would not expect a lay person to know that.
Likewise, I'm not going to harp too much on when articles and reporting get the science wrong, and more commonly get terms mixed up. You'll just drive yourself crazy if you do.
edit: FWIW, as an engineer myself, I generally agree with your distinction.
Not to be flippant but, isn't philosophy all about, to some degree, "pedantic nitipicking"? Or are you on the wrong forum? (For example: What is Truth? What is Love? What is History? What is the self? What is matter? What is energy? etc)
You've kind of hit on my point with your other points. When musicians, among musicians, confuse terms like note/key, aria/arrangement, etc, it can lead to a misunderstading. Worse yet, is when the musicians feed the public these misunderstandings, for example: conductor/composer. Does the conductor take credit for the beautiful composition by Mozart (long dead in this example) or does the composer take all the glory (even after a superbly conducted piece)? Does the director of the play take all the credit or the writer or the actors or the producers or the sfx team etc? I believe that we should use terms carefully and accurately.
When you build something, which part of you is doing the building?
You head or your hands?
Both. The "head" visualizes the completed project and the "hands" actualize it. But building something is strictly engineering, and not scientific in the slightest.
I agree that science is about discovering the fundamental laws of the universe and engineering is utilizing science to build things, and that there is an important distinction.
However, the problem with the original question is that it is a quote from a major news source, not a scholarly journal or academia at all.
Major news is not very good at understanding the nuances of what they report, let alone something like this.
Anyone in a white coat is either a doctor or a scientist according to most major news outlets.
This is my point, that we (society) use the term science very loosely. I suspect even scientists use the term loosely. It has become short-hand for anything remotely technological. Compare this to the word "nutrition" as relating to anything to do with eating and health: "that ice cream was nutritional". This is exactly how I feel about the science/engineering divide, and furthermore, what will become of science if we don't really understand it and confuse it with something else.
Both. The "head" visualizes the completed project and the "hands" actualize it. But building something is strictly engineering, and not scientific in the slightest.
Except building a theory ?
What about building institutions (such as the optimal welfare rules for a public auction) ? Is that science, engineering or either ?
Not trying to be condescending, just wanna know you opinion ok?
Both. The "head" visualizes the completed project and the "hands" actualize it. But building something is strictly engineering, and not scientific in the slightest.
Except building a theory ?
What about building institutions (such as the optimal welfare rules for a public auction) ? Is that science, engineering or either ?
Not trying to be condescending, just wanna know you opinion ok?
No offense taken!
I would say that the way you are using the word "build" is metaphorical. But I probably should not have used absolutes like "strictly" or "not in the slightest".
Putting it simply a scientist creates scientific models, an engineer creates using scientific models.
This is what I'm talking about, engineers use scientific models to achieve ends, science doesn't really have ends unless you count the personal goals of those who partake in it.
From what I could gather about this, the researchers are engineers. Its common in the media to assume that any scientific research is made by scientists, but at least engineers that go for the academic rout, do a lot of scientific research, so it's normal to see this in papers that don't realy bother to look at the researchers credentials.
@melkor7, don't speak about what you clearly don't know, engineering is a scientific process, engineering was created in France, when a group of people decided to see what scientific knowledge could be used to create better solutions and/or solve problems. Plus engineering is not all about building, its about planing how to build, how to manage the building process, how to optimize the benefits of what is being built, etc... Engineering as nothing to do with science?! You don´t have the faintest idea of what an engineer does.
What do you call the people who designed and built projects on a grand scale before France was a thing? I don't think at all that engineering was "created" anywhere in the sense that you are speaking of, but is rather that all societies do it, because they have ends. Engineering is about achieving an end, science is not concerned with what you can do with the knowledge it discovers (unless the application of that knowledge is to further scientific understanding). I also don't think that engineers have to rely solely on "scientific knowledge", it is possible that they could manipulate materials or laws in a way that they don't understand and still achieve a desired end. I never implied that "engineering is all about building", but rather that when one builds one is engaging in engineering and not science. I also never said that "engineering has nothing to do with science", but rather that there is a distinction between them.
Not to be flippant but, isn't philosophy all about, to some degree, "pedantic nitipicking"? Or are you on the wrong forum? (For example: What is Truth? What is Love? What is History? What is the self? What is matter? What is energy? etc)
You've kind of hit on my point with your other points. When musicians, among musicians, confuse terms like note/key, aria/arrangement, etc, it can lead to a misunderstading. Worse yet, is when the musicians feed the public these misunderstandings, for example: conductor/composer. Does the conductor take credit for the beautiful composition by Mozart (long dead in this example) or does the composer take all the glory (even after a superbly conducted piece)? Does the director of the play take all the credit or the writer or the actors or the producers or the sfx team etc? I believe that we should use terms carefully and accurately.
It sounds then like your main issue is just an educational one. Like "promoting awareness of the difference between science and engineering"
Like i said before you'll get no argument from me about the classical distinction between science and engineering. That's not to say that distinction may not change in the future. But those in the field are at least reasonably clear that there is a distinction between a Chemist and a Chemical Engineer.
But I called your issue pedantic nitpicking because I don't see it as a philosophical issue so much as a poor vocabulary/ poor awareness issue.
Not to be flippant but, isn't philosophy all about, to some degree, "pedantic nitipicking"? Or are you on the wrong forum? (For example: What is Truth? What is Love? What is History? What is the self? What is matter? What is energy? etc)
You've kind of hit on my point with your other points. When musicians, among musicians, confuse terms like note/key, aria/arrangement, etc, it can lead to a misunderstading. Worse yet, is when the musicians feed the public these misunderstandings, for example: conductor/composer. Does the conductor take credit for the beautiful composition by Mozart (long dead in this example) or does the composer take all the glory (even after a superbly conducted piece)? Does the director of the play take all the credit or the writer or the actors or the producers or the sfx team etc? I believe that we should use terms carefully and accurately.
Only sort of. Philosophy is about finding the answers to certain classes of questions. It's not supposed to be a navelgazing waste of time (though I concede that it too often turns out that way).
So there should be a certain degree of tolerance for posing questions in philosophy that look like simple pedantry, but they still need to be shown to be a deep or important question at the end of the day.
In the end, I think Crashing's reply is pretty decisive. There can be distinctions between the two disciplines, but they can't be as tightly defined as you've suggested.
I really don't think so. I of course think that the disciplines overlap and that, broadly, everyone is an engineer of some sort. One cannot ever do anything on purpose without goal-oriented thinking, thus everyone is an engineer. But, professionally, not everyone is an engineer. Scientists did not build CERN to test Quantum Theory, but rather, Engineers built CERN at the request of scientists so that they could study physics. To me it is utterly laughable to think that quantum theorists built CERN or Fermilab. This is the distinction that I am talking about, goal based thinking (build CERN for physicists) and scientific based thinking (using the built CERN to test hypotheses and theories).
The thing to remember is that those scientists who built the tiny flying robots are doing it to learn about micro-scale robots, about flight, and presumably any number of other subjects. They're not doing it to solve particular problems.
And that's, ultimately, why fine distinctions here are not worth making. If they were doing it primarily because tiny flying robots were the answer to some practical problem, we'd say they were engineers. What if they were doing it for both reasons - because it's a practical solution to a particular problem and because it can shed insights into scientific questions?
Ultimately, I don't think science and engineering are all that different... more like two sides of the same coin. They're both about understanding and extending our mastery over the physical universe. There are differences in the details of what a scientist does vs what an engineer does (especially in the motives for what they do), but they're both ultimately about the same thing.
Not to be flippant but, isn't philosophy all about, to some degree, "pedantic nitipicking"? Or are you on the wrong forum? (For example: What is Truth? What is Love? What is History? What is the self? What is matter? What is energy? etc)
You've kind of hit on my point with your other points. When musicians, among musicians, confuse terms like note/key, aria/arrangement, etc, it can lead to a misunderstading. Worse yet, is when the musicians feed the public these misunderstandings, for example: conductor/composer. Does the conductor take credit for the beautiful composition by Mozart (long dead in this example) or does the composer take all the glory (even after a superbly conducted piece)? Does the director of the play take all the credit or the writer or the actors or the producers or the sfx team etc? I believe that we should use terms carefully and accurately.
Only sort of. Philosophy is about finding the answers to certain classes of questions. It's not supposed to be a navelgazing waste of time (though I concede that it too often turns out that way).
So there should be a certain degree of tolerance for posing questions in philosophy that look like simple pedantry, but they still need to be shown to be a deep or important question at the end of the day.
In the end, I think Crashing's reply is pretty decisive. There can be distinctions between the two disciplines, but they can't be as tightly defined as you've suggested.
I really don't think so. I of course think that the disciplines overlap and that, broadly, everyone is an engineer of some sort. One cannot ever do anything on purpose without goal-oriented thinking, thus everyone is an engineer. But, professionally, not everyone is an engineer. Scientists did not build CERN to test Quantum Theory, but rather, Engineers built CERN at the request of scientists so that they could study physics. To me it is utterly laughable to think that quantum theorists built CERN or Fermilab. This is the distinction that I am talking about, goal based thinking (build CERN for physicists) and scientific based thinking (using the built CERN to test hypotheses and theories).
The thing to remember is that those scientists who built the tiny flying robots are doing it to learn about micro-scale robots, about flight, and presumably any number of other subjects. They're not doing it to solve particular problems.
And that's, ultimately, why fine distinctions here are not worth making. If they were doing it primarily because tiny flying robots were the answer to some practical problem, we'd say they were engineers. What if they were doing it for both reasons - because it's a practical solution to a particular problem and because it can shed insights into scientific questions?
Ultimately, I don't think science and engineering are all that different... more like two sides of the same coin. They're both about understanding and extending our mastery over the physical universe. There are differences in the details of what a scientist does vs what an engineer does (especially in the motives for what they do), but they're both ultimately about the same thing.
Emphasis Mine (parts in bold).
I don't think that trying to parse out a distinction between a field of knowledge and its methods (science) and a practical, pragmatic field which is concerned about ends (engineering) is a navel-gazing waste of time or pedantry. I think that by pointing out this distinction we learn more about what these things are. This is quite common in philosophy, the "What is X?" questions (for example: "what is philosophy?" or "what is science?)
What makes a question deep or important? If you ask people on the street, "what is a deep question?" you will probably get answers like: "what is the meaning of life?" "What happens when we die?" or "what is the nature of the universe?" If you asked philosophers, you would get some seemingly bizarre answers: "what is the meaning of a word?" "What is a thing?" "what is identity?" etc. I think that by examining things philosophically you will find that there are aspects of most questions that are deep and important.
I understand that there are obvious scientific applications based upon advances in engineering. Much like those who study Philosophy of Mind may study advances in Neuroscience. But that does not make Philosophy of mind and Neuroscience the same thing, they have different methods and often different goals.
I don't see how Science and Engineering are ultimately the same thing, one is trying to know the world, while the other is trying to make use of the world. The fact that you can use knowledge of the world to achieve ends does not mean that they are the same thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To paraphrase:
"Scientists create tiny robotic insect"
This, of course, got me thinking about what a scientist (and therefore science) actually is. Because, to me, engineers created this robot and not scientists. This my seem trivial, but I think that it is important, as it may give us some insights into the philosophy of science. But let me elaborate....
Engineers are concerned about ends. How can I build this bridge to be structural? How can I create a tiny robot fly? How can I accomplish X? These are the questions that I think engineers are concerned with.
Scientists, on the other hand, are not concerned about ends at all. (They may be personally, but not scientifically) Rather, scientists are concerned with theories, which are universal in scope. A theory increases our stock of knowledge in the world, if it tests successfully. Scientists do tests to try and judge the accuracy of their various theories, but as far as science is concerned the practical results of these tests are irrelevant.
Therefore, I don't see how creators of tiny flying robots are scientists. I don't see any hypothesis being tested by creating these things (beyond a technological hypothesis of substance x can be made to do action y) and I don't see how there creation increases theoretical knowledge. That said, it greatly increases technological knowledge (and I'm sure engineers are watching stuff like this closely), but this knowledge is for ends.
Any thoughts?
And every engineer is also a scientist, because if the X in "how do I accomplish X?" is something that the engineer does not yet know how to do, he is going to have to enter a theoretical phase where he generates and tests various hypotheses, as all engineers in fact do.
Not even mathematicians work purely theoretically anymore. It is rare to find one who hasn't ever had to engineer a program in Mathematica, GAP, MAGMA, et cetera. in order to step towards a solution to a theoretical problem.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
just accept it and move on. I don't like it when my musician friends point out that I'm mis-using the term "key" with "note" or aria/arrangement, or rendition/medley.
I have but a vague knowledge as to the distinctions of these terms. But neither did they know the difference between litigation, legislation, and jurisprudence. To them, it's just one big blob of "things concerning law"
Another example, what is the difference between a rule and statute?
What about the difference between slander, libel, and defamation?
I would not expect a lay person to know that.
Likewise, I'm not going to harp too much on when articles and reporting get the science wrong, and more commonly get terms mixed up. You'll just drive yourself crazy if you do.
edit: FWIW, as an engineer myself, I generally agree with your distinction.
You head or your hands?
However, the problem with the original question is that it is a quote from a major news source, not a scholarly journal or academia at all.
Major news is not very good at understanding the nuances of what they report, let alone something like this.
Anyone in a white coat is either a doctor or a scientist according to most major news outlets.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I really don't think so. I of course think that the disciplines overlap and that, broadly, everyone is an engineer of some sort. One cannot ever do anything on purpose without goal-oriented thinking, thus everyone is an engineer. But, professionally, not everyone is an engineer. Scientists did not build CERN to test Quantum Theory, but rather, Engineers built CERN at the request of scientists so that they could study physics. To me it is utterly laughable to think that quantum theorists built CERN or Fermilab. This is the distinction that I am talking about, goal based thinking (build CERN for physicists) and scientific based thinking (using the built CERN to test hypotheses and theories).
Not to be flippant but, isn't philosophy all about, to some degree, "pedantic nitipicking"? Or are you on the wrong forum? (For example: What is Truth? What is Love? What is History? What is the self? What is matter? What is energy? etc)
You've kind of hit on my point with your other points. When musicians, among musicians, confuse terms like note/key, aria/arrangement, etc, it can lead to a misunderstading. Worse yet, is when the musicians feed the public these misunderstandings, for example: conductor/composer. Does the conductor take credit for the beautiful composition by Mozart (long dead in this example) or does the composer take all the glory (even after a superbly conducted piece)? Does the director of the play take all the credit or the writer or the actors or the producers or the sfx team etc? I believe that we should use terms carefully and accurately.
Both. The "head" visualizes the completed project and the "hands" actualize it. But building something is strictly engineering, and not scientific in the slightest.
This is my point, that we (society) use the term science very loosely. I suspect even scientists use the term loosely. It has become short-hand for anything remotely technological. Compare this to the word "nutrition" as relating to anything to do with eating and health: "that ice cream was nutritional". This is exactly how I feel about the science/engineering divide, and furthermore, what will become of science if we don't really understand it and confuse it with something else.
Except building a theory ?
What about building institutions (such as the optimal welfare rules for a public auction) ? Is that science, engineering or either ?
Not trying to be condescending, just wanna know you opinion ok?
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
No offense taken!
I would say that the way you are using the word "build" is metaphorical. But I probably should not have used absolutes like "strictly" or "not in the slightest".
This is what I'm talking about, engineers use scientific models to achieve ends, science doesn't really have ends unless you count the personal goals of those who partake in it.
What do you call the people who designed and built projects on a grand scale before France was a thing? I don't think at all that engineering was "created" anywhere in the sense that you are speaking of, but is rather that all societies do it, because they have ends. Engineering is about achieving an end, science is not concerned with what you can do with the knowledge it discovers (unless the application of that knowledge is to further scientific understanding). I also don't think that engineers have to rely solely on "scientific knowledge", it is possible that they could manipulate materials or laws in a way that they don't understand and still achieve a desired end. I never implied that "engineering is all about building", but rather that when one builds one is engaging in engineering and not science. I also never said that "engineering has nothing to do with science", but rather that there is a distinction between them.
It sounds then like your main issue is just an educational one. Like "promoting awareness of the difference between science and engineering"
Like i said before you'll get no argument from me about the classical distinction between science and engineering. That's not to say that distinction may not change in the future. But those in the field are at least reasonably clear that there is a distinction between a Chemist and a Chemical Engineer.
But I called your issue pedantic nitpicking because I don't see it as a philosophical issue so much as a poor vocabulary/ poor awareness issue.
Only sort of. Philosophy is about finding the answers to certain classes of questions. It's not supposed to be a navelgazing waste of time (though I concede that it too often turns out that way).
So there should be a certain degree of tolerance for posing questions in philosophy that look like simple pedantry, but they still need to be shown to be a deep or important question at the end of the day.
In the end, I think Crashing's reply is pretty decisive. There can be distinctions between the two disciplines, but they can't be as tightly defined as you've suggested.
The thing to remember is that those scientists who built the tiny flying robots are doing it to learn about micro-scale robots, about flight, and presumably any number of other subjects. They're not doing it to solve particular problems.
And that's, ultimately, why fine distinctions here are not worth making. If they were doing it primarily because tiny flying robots were the answer to some practical problem, we'd say they were engineers. What if they were doing it for both reasons - because it's a practical solution to a particular problem and because it can shed insights into scientific questions?
Ultimately, I don't think science and engineering are all that different... more like two sides of the same coin. They're both about understanding and extending our mastery over the physical universe. There are differences in the details of what a scientist does vs what an engineer does (especially in the motives for what they do), but they're both ultimately about the same thing.
Emphasis Mine (parts in bold).
I don't think that trying to parse out a distinction between a field of knowledge and its methods (science) and a practical, pragmatic field which is concerned about ends (engineering) is a navel-gazing waste of time or pedantry. I think that by pointing out this distinction we learn more about what these things are. This is quite common in philosophy, the "What is X?" questions (for example: "what is philosophy?" or "what is science?)
What makes a question deep or important? If you ask people on the street, "what is a deep question?" you will probably get answers like: "what is the meaning of life?" "What happens when we die?" or "what is the nature of the universe?" If you asked philosophers, you would get some seemingly bizarre answers: "what is the meaning of a word?" "What is a thing?" "what is identity?" etc. I think that by examining things philosophically you will find that there are aspects of most questions that are deep and important.
I understand that there are obvious scientific applications based upon advances in engineering. Much like those who study Philosophy of Mind may study advances in Neuroscience. But that does not make Philosophy of mind and Neuroscience the same thing, they have different methods and often different goals.
I don't see how Science and Engineering are ultimately the same thing, one is trying to know the world, while the other is trying to make use of the world. The fact that you can use knowledge of the world to achieve ends does not mean that they are the same thing.