[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: engineers and scientists was [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory
Jim Lux wrote:
Obviously, it's not a Manichean thing with one or the other, more of a
continuum, but a bimodal one.
Its interesting you invoke the term "Manichean", alluding to a (false)
dual-dichotomy of mind vs. matter, and understanding vs. doing. The
"Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is a philosophical issue I suspect won't
be settled until the nature of consciousness and free-will are better known.
Every "living" thing must sense-decide-act, or ask and answer the three
questions, "where am I, what should I do, how can I know". Many
paramecium and bacteria are excellent scientists and engineers.
However.. Scientists are driven by wanting to understand. Engineers
are driven by wanting to do. The classic scientist might do
experiments to better understand, but the goal is the understanding,
not the doing the experiments.
A scientist, Einstein for instance, doing a "thought experiment" is
indeed doing an experiment. When I simulate a circuit, or even consider
one, it is a matter of effort bringing about change. And I suspect we
can be reasonably certain what goes on in our brains isn't so different
than what we've taught our computers and graphic tools to help us do. So
again I think this is a false-distinction; the scientist and engineer
are about the same business of living with different tools and ends.
The engineer strives to do something, typically requiring some
understanding, but there are lots of engineers who work totally
empirically.
I suspect most of what the "Mythbusters" do could easily be calculated
and are simply excuses to blow up and brake stuff. Which speaks to
motivation, within the realm of culture, politics and business. Perhaps
its better to use an information-model based on content, media and
presentation. Yet again, and especially with computing, we can hardly
separate and focus on content (science-principles) apart from media
(calculation-tools), or media (computers) apart from content
(programming and models).
I'll make a concrete distinction; /the good/. The purpose for which the
science or engineering is done. The motivation isn't about reasoning,
motivation is a priori. If we weren't motivated to live, we wouldn't be
thinking, we wouldn't be calculating or building. Motivation is an
organic, chemical action of certain "living" things in the universe. I
think many of us have found our motivations, or what turns us on,
changes as we age. Its probably more than just the novelty wearing off too.
Although, to me, what made engineering engineering (around the time
of the Renaissance) was the change from doing it as a craft (do what
worked before) was the use of a theoretical model to guide what you do
next. For instance, I'm pretty impressed by what Roman engineers did
2000 years ago (aqueducts, bridges, the Pantheon), but I'm not totally
convinced it was engineering in the modern sense.
There was an interesting program on Cspan,
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9038&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=No
William Noel, Co-author, "The Archimedes Codex"
Archimedes was constructing mathematical proofs, with applications in
mechanics 200BC. The geometry we call science, and the mechanics
engineering. But these are our facile linguistic distinctions that
belong more to the realm of career-paths than nature. I suspect a
visiting Martian might not make such distinctions regarding the
"engineering" done by various species here, and the "science" of the
patters nature decorates itself with.
Might as well not bother considering whether its a product of a
deliberate will because that begs the question are we/nature the product
of a deliberate will. Since the universe includes time, that will cannot
be the product of consciousness as we understand it, as creatures who's
consciousness thought is incomplete and constrained by a thermodynamic
arrow of time.
I don't know that pyramid architects actually figured this out by
analyzing the forces, or by just doing some empirical experiments.
I suspect the pyramids engineers were priests, that were either rewarded
or executed by the Pharaohs for either doing well or ill. More likely,
that practical engineering skill was developed for constructing forts
and siege weapons.
And the real purpose of the pyramids was far more practical than
religious; keep all the young men doing busy-work so they stayed in a
militaristic, organized culture and didn't form street-gangs and setoff
to loot and pillage and take over. And no doubt the monuments had an
awe-inspiring effect on foreign traders (spys). And tomb and
ancestor-worship would also serve to maintain the political and economic
status-quo; the nobility had a vested interest in maintaining the
class-structure and public works. We have our pyramids.
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla