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

[Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott Stephens wrote:
> Jim Lux wrote:
> > I think it's more  the motivation..
> > The "scientist" (recognizing that I'm speaking in terms of an 
> > artifical construct here)
> Any vocational definitions (priest-craft notwithstanding) are artificial 
> constructs.
> > 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)
> Is a musician more of an artist than a sculptor? Is an architect less an 
> artist than a poet? Your criteria seems to be the utility /*and*/ 
> tangibility of the work-product.
I don't know about "utility" per se.

 I suspect software-engineers would find
> the latter repugnant, and architects the former.
Maybe tangible isn't the word I'm looking for... maybe "discrete" might 
be a better one?
Software *is* a discrete work product, at least in the sense that it is 
something "deliverable", it actually "does something", most software 
also doesn't "explain" something or in itself, let you predict future 
behaviors.  Newton's Laws, on the other hand, are "knowledge" and 
explain a physical behavior and predict what behaviors might exist in 
the future.  They're also not readily pushed into a "contract 
deliverable" sort of description.  One might have a deliverable of a 
report or paper that describes some physical law, but the law itself is 
a chunk of knowledge.

Maybe one could describe it as something that can be protected by 
copyright, patent, etc.?

And isn't what separates civil engineering from architecture from 
sculpture is the utility. Nobody says that a building or bridge can't be 
beautiful or aesthetically pleasing (or ugly, for that matter.. de 
gustibus non disputandum), but I would thing the essential difference is 
the utility.  Art doesn't *have* to be useful.  The product of an 
engineer does.

And, that inherent duality is probably why lots of artistically creative 
folks wind up in the engineering professions.
 I feel certain that the
> joy anyone, scientist, engineer or artist, gets from a job well-done has 
> the same neurological basis, origin and purpose - to enable us to live 
> and flourish. Beauty produces pleasure and can be defined, even if it is 
> a bit subjective. And Nature produces diversity for a reason, even if 
> the purpose is inscrutable for us now.
> > > I suspect most of what the "Mythbusters" do could easily be 
> > > calculated and are simply excuses to blow up
> > The Mythbusters are entertainers, not engineers nor scientists.
> We all play many roles, but why?
> > 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.
> And why do we make Tesla Coils? I suspect mostly entertainment and 
> aesthetics. Few of us expect or intend to do any ground-breaking 
> research. We make engineering our art.

Or, is it that we are artists and craftspeople using engineering?  A 
good friend of my sister's husband is simultaneously, a sculptor and a 
designer of large steel structures (tanks and pipes and beams, and the 
like).  All because he found he liked welding.  So, he builds those 
giant works of art one sees out in front of buildings, and he also 
builds industrial plumbing.

> I'll concede though that the scientist is more the artist, an artist of 
> /truth/. And the engineer is more a slave to necessities that are 
> imposed by Nature. Art is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of motives. 
> Our more urgent pursuits requiring engineering (defense, food, clothing, 
> shelter, et.) at the bottom. And I think that's where we probably agree. 
> Not on the tangibility, but the necessity of purpose.
>
> Now for the morality and ethics of who pays, and who profits...


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