×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

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'?

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I don't.

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

Quote:

How many of you are really 'pushing the envelope'?

As much as I can.

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I am involved with pushing the envelope a lot, but that does not make me a scientist. Both item 1 and 2 could be used to describe engineering, especially point 1.

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

(OP)
You guys are selling out in the worst of ways.

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

"You guys are selling out in the worst of ways"

qué?

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I sort of see scientists using engineers to do their "dirty" work. Same as engineers using drafters.
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

Working in research I probably satisfy 1) of the OPs criteria though I don't think the second part - "is involved in the advanced research (with or without a particular field/goal in mind)" is applicable to anyone other than theoretical physicists who have no particular goal in mind.

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

#2 is what universities do.  They don't need a financial goal.  Knowledge is their goal.

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I'm mostly into research nowadays, so the answer is clearly "yes."  When I designed, I would've said "no."

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I would use the term "Applied Scientist" as I utilize/apply the scientific method in solving the "real world" problems I encounter daily.  This in lieu of the pure research definition of science.

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

Did'nt we have a topic on scientist engineer or engineer scientist before?

Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I am both. Some days its pure research, some days pure applied science.

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

I am an engineer, I know what to do with the scientific knowledge.

csd

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

Is scientist a bad word here?  I'd bet even Greg meets my definition of scientist:  one who uses the scientific principle in his daily work.  To heck with peer reviewed journals, what's important is if it works; nature is the best reviewer going, and she's pretty brutal on people with no real experience other than publishing papers.

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

My dad was both (BSME Hamburg, Ph.D. organic chem McGill).  He worked as both at different times.

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

"Generally speaking, scientists are working for the purpose of advancing knowledge.  Engineers are not; they are engaged in application of existing knowledge."

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

Although some engineers are involved in research, and some scientists, such as industrial chemists are involved in ongoing processes.

csd

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

I am not 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

The OP started with a very bad definition of a scientist, which I attempted to correct. An astrologist would have met his definition.

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 primary field is a "crossover" field - Materials science/engineering.

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

Sheesh.  So your work is completely unscientific?  You can form no logical development path for your project, define no real-world tests for your product?  You must work for Microsoft then. :)

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

A scientist is a practitioner of the Scientific Method. It is not a title that is appointed by any institution. It can be in a job title, but that is not what makes a scientist. A scientist makes new discoveries everyday and then is usually disappointed to learn that someone else already discovered it.

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

Quote:

"A scientist makes new discoveries everyday "



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

Structural engineers generally don't push the envelope.  Existing knowledge established the envelope and we try to stay within it.

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

"Average structural engineers design structures that are unnecessarily bulky/costly."
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

Back in the Newtonian days, aren't engineers simply known as mathematicians?

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. winky smile

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

Scientist is just a old archaic way of saying engineer. All engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are engineers. Engineers have an end user, while scientists postulate and confirm, which engineers should do!

RE: How many of you would consider yourself a SCIENTIST

Engineers solve problems, even where the methods used to solve the problems are not know or fully understood.  Hence our use of empirical formulas and graphs.  Scientist try to understand what is not understood.

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

apsix, my statement was a generalization, no doubt.  

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

whyun, at what point though does the extra time and effort required to deliberately design a 'barely adequate' structure end up costing more than the money saved by a few less lbs of material?

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

Agreed KENAT...
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

whyun,

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

"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."

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

KENAT & csd72,
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.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources