How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
(OP)
I realize that this is an engineering forum, but how many of you would consider yourself a scientist?
I would think of scientist in terms of taking something that either
1 is heavily based on the recent advanced research of another and then applying this to bettering something or
2 is involved in the advanced research (with or without a particular field/goal in mind)
It seems as though most engineers are all about applying recognized common standards/ products / practices to designing the most efficient systems possible.
How many of you are really 'pushing the envelope'?
I would think of scientist in terms of taking something that either
1 is heavily based on the recent advanced research of another and then applying this to bettering something or
2 is involved in the advanced research (with or without a particular field/goal in mind)
It seems as though most engineers are all about applying recognized common standards/ products / practices to designing the most efficient systems possible.
How many of you are really 'pushing the envelope'?





RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Scientists use the scientific method.
Scientists issue peer reviewed papers.
Scientists' experiments are not valid unless they are statistically reliable and can be repeated by other people.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
As much as I can.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Scientists bring on engineers to apply what they learn, that is what engineers are for. Scientists discover or investigate physical principals, and may dream up some ideas on how these principals might be applied to better our lives, but it is the engineers that make it happen. Where I work we have corridors full of scientists, but for every scientist there are probably ten engineers (maybe more) in our organization.
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" Oddball, "Kelly's Heros" 1970
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
qué?
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
I would never consider myself to be a scientist. I'm not degreed to do it and not payed for it. I design parts, not work with hypotheses, laws or theories.
I have worked with a lot of Pseudoscientists. ;) I'm not one of them.
Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
I don't wear a white coat though and the job title still says engineer.
corus
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
I do not do envelope pushing research but I do keep tabs on what is going on as eventually it may affect a product or process that I work with. Reading through research publications also helps keep my mind fresh.
Regards,
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
That said I work in the real world, not academia, therefore I always have a real world goal.
I dont think that the OP's criteria are valid.
Nick
I love materials science!
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
csd
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Science begins with hypotheses, which are then tested (ideally with a control group, and with large samples allowing statistical analyses), which leads to either confirmation of the hypotheses or revision of them.
Anybody working in an ISO 9000 shop is working the scientific method, like it or not.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Generally speaking, scientists are working for the purpose of advancing knowledge. Engineers are not; they are engaged in application of existing knowledge.
Personality issues aside, I wish everyone could have a chance to work for someone like him. His mastery of natural sciences made him an excellent engineer and profilic inventor of things that made a lot of money (for other people!). His lab was where reality reflected "book knowledge".
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Great, Tick! That nailed my vague sense of the differense between the two.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
csd
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Trust me, lots of them work here and I am not one of them.
Compared to scientists us Engineers are the height or sartorial elegance and expert people people, if you catch my drift.
Some of the Engineers/Scientists here though do blur the distinction.
Then again, to some members definitions I'm not an Engineer either.
Woe is me.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
As to advanced research, well, in techniques, yes, we are making things up as we go along. And we are always willing to steal the results that someone else has been working on, and using them for our projects.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
My degrees are both: chemistry and mechanical engineering.
I work primarily with engineers, but occasionally scientists (chemists & metallurgists primarily).
Which brings me to the question, "Do I consider myself a scientist"? No.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
An engineer uses scientific principles to solve problems. (Or drives a locomotive). There are many definitions.
Most Scientists and Engineers are a mixture of both. A few are not.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Hah, I wish I made new discoveries everyday, heck if I got one a month reliably I would have a whole lot less to do......
(Not that I dont learn something everyday, but that rarely are any of my experiments done in a day.)
Nick
I love materials science!
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Scientists among us attempt to stretch the envelope due to political or industrial pressure and when it is stretched, engineers are "allowed" to design flimsier structures.
Average structural engineers design structures that are unnecessarily bulky/costly. Good ones design structures that are close to the envelope, i.e. optimal.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
I could argue that this statement is an over-generalisation, but it's preferable to;
Below average engineers who design structures that are unnecessarily light/cheap.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Actually 1/3 of my current job title has the word "scientist" in it though I have a PhD ME under my belt. What might be a shocker to most die-hard MEs is that most of my PhD work pertains to non-traditional ME R&D subjects. Think along the lines of autonomous egoistic multi-agent system with game theory and cognitive science.
But to keep my "engineering" brain alive, I have to design parts and work on my race car.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Example - dowsing for water. As an engineer I would set up an experiment to demonstrate dowsing for water works and gives an accurate result say 95% of the time. Once I was suitably confident it works, I would happily use it until something happenned to disprove the fact it worked.
As an scientist I would try and find out how or why dowsing works. Once I have found out how it works, it would be possible to optimise the process.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Typical run-of-the-mill engineers tend to over simplify their design and end up with conservative designs that are code compliant yet end up costing the owner more in construction costs.
It is the real good engineers that can perform more elaborate designs to end up with a code compliant structure that is lighter and uses less material resulting in direct savings to the owner in construction costs.
I agree with your statement about BELOW average engineers designing light/cheap structures that are non-code compliant.
If you can design light and cheap structures for the owner that perform AND comply with code, actually this means you are a very good engineer.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
There are situations where the extra effort is justified but, at least in my mechanical/defence(even dare I say it aerospace)world they are not as often as your posts might suggest.
Also while barely adequate designs often use less material, the distribution of this material is more critical i.e. you end up with more complex shapes which in their own right can cost money.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
Though it would seem so, there isn't a direct correlation between piece price and amount of material. Most of the time, the simpler design will be more economic than the complicated with less material.
I think what what whyun was trying to suggest is the optimization generally pays for it self.
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
less material does not necessarily mean cheaper to build. In fact in my experience it is almost the opposite.
If it is a simple concept, simple to design, it should also be simple to build therefore cheaper for the client with all costs considered.
Complicated analyses should be avoided where possible as they are prone to errors and are harder to independently check.
csd
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
That was part of the point I was trying to make.
In some cases the optimization pays for itself, in many I suspect it doesn't as csd72 points out.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST
That's why I used the word "optimal" in my previous post. Good engineers know how to group things (for example: use 4 pad footing types instead of 20 in 3" increments) and use less variation (for example: design using as few types of bars as possible and adjust the spacing instead of using all sizes from #3 to #11 bars).
Structural engineering is not "rocket science" or watchmaking. In this line of work, accuracy is essential but precision is not very important.
Using less material (for any design) is better but should not be compromised by special detailing that increases labor which is the other half of the total cost.
Getting back to the op, engineers tend not to push the envelope. Many design checks (for example: column interaction diagram or fastener tension-shear interaction curves) involve plotting a point outside of which the design fails. My point was that good engineers design stuff that are close to the envelope while average engineers, further away.
My comments were specific only to structural engineering and I didn't mean them to encompass all engineering.