Re: engineers and scientists was [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory

[Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott Stephens wrote:
> 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.

.. NO.. I insist we thrash it out, right here, right now, for the 
betterment of civilization.   (I just had a discussion with my wife and 
daughter about the difference between dialectics in general and 
dialectical materialism, in connection with some research into what the 
term bourgeoisie means, and whether being a member of same is inherently 
bad, or only bad in the context of oppressing the masses.

Chip's gonna kill the thread soon..<grin>


> 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.

I think it's more  the motivation..
The "scientist" (recognizing that I'm speaking in terms of an artifical 
construct here) wants to understand, so comes up with an experiment that 
will further that understanding. Perhaps testing a hypothesis, perhaps 
just to create something for observation.

The "engineer" wants to create a tangible thing (or, at least, a model 
of a tangible thing), and to that end, needs either empirical data on 
what works and what doesn't, or some amount of theoretical knowledge to 
make a informed prediction of what will work and what doesn't. 
Certainly, modern engineering makes MUCH more use of the latter than the 
former, particularly as the underlying "science" is better understood 
(look at, for instance, the modeling of fractures and fatigue phenomena)


> >   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.


The Mythbusters are entertainers, not engineers nor scientists. They're 
not even particularly cost effective special effects folks (if their 
goal was to create a specific look at a director's behest).  However, 
they are good entertainers, and, at least, don't do too much violence to 
scientific and engineering principles.


> > 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.

Well.. that is a significant incentive to do the job right.

However, the builders of the pyramid did do a lot of things that are 
engineering like.  For instance, the idea of having a primary length 
standard for the cubit carved on a rock at the job site, which foremen 
would use to calibrate their transfer standards for day to day use. 
They even had documentation artifacts to show that they had done their 
calibration of transfer standard to primary standard on the required 
schedule, with failure to keep to the standard punishable by death. 
(Fortunately, all we get now is some sort of non-conformance notice, 
which needs to be appropriately dispositioned.


_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla